Law360: Employers can no longer depend on the potential upset caused by employees who express controversial beliefs as a reason to discipline them after the Court of Appeal endorsed a Christian worker's claim of discrimination, lawyers warned.

Pensions analysis: The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (DPO) in the determination of Mr N, CAS-61348-B1V7 has rejected a complaint that the employer had not provided the member with adequate information on opting out of an automatic enrolment scheme. Mr N had only opted-out of the scheme after the expiry of the three-month window and was not entitled to a return of his contributions. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Law360: Efforts by employers to prevent sexual harassment have intensified in the year since the UK introduced a legal obligation for them to take 'reasonable steps' to do so—but lawyers warn that businesses must adopt a holistic approach to prevention as the government seeks to raise the bar again.

Law360: Nine out of ten employers expect the government to ditch tax breaks on pension salary-sacrifice arrangements when it unveils its autumn Budget, a survey has found.

Employment analysis: Oliver Isaacs, barrister at 3 Paper Buildings, discusses the importance of McWilliams v Citibank NA and explains the scope of subject access requests (SARs) in the disciplinary process.

According to new detail published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), employers are likely to change how they pay staff and fund pensions in response to the government’s decision to limit National Insurance contributions (NICs) relief on salary-sacrificed pension contributions. From 6 April 2029, salary-sacrificed pension contributions above £2,000 a year will be subject to both employee and employer NICs. Released after requests for more explanation of the pensions salary sacrifice policy announced at Budget 2025, the report shows that the OBR expects employers to react rather than absorb the extra cost, with one of the main assumptions being that employers will divert part of future pay rises into ordinary employer pension contributions, which remain exempt from NICs. Employees are also assumed to cut their own contributions so that overall pension saving stays broadly unchanged. This behaviour is assumed to start before the policy takes effect and to lower the amount of tax raised once the policy is in force.

Law360, London: The Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) decision to drop its workforce diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives does not mean employers are off the hook as the government pushes ahead with workers' rights legislation, but lawyers say the rollback might convince other organisations to pause or reconsider theirDEI programmes.

Overview The legal consequences of a breach of health and safety obligations in the workplace include the likelihood that financial compensation will be payable to the claimant or, where applicable, their dependants. Such liability typically arises from claims brought in the civil courts or as a result of threatened litigation. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has a range of enforcement powers in relation to employing organisations, including the ability to issue prohibition or improvement notices. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA 1974), breaches may also give rise to criminal liability, with potential penalties for both individuals and companies including fines and, in serious cases, imprisonment. The employer’s duty of care The existence of a duty of care owed by the employer to the employee is well established and requires no further analysis. The duty arises in two ways—at common law (negligence) or under statutory regulation. Statutory regulation of workplace safety has existed for almost 200 years. The first safety statute (as distinct from health and welfare regulations)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The High Court has held that an employer did not breach its duty of care to an employee despite failing to carry out a risk assessment which a reasonably prudent employer would have conducted. The claimant was injured when he fell from the deck of an ‘Odyssey’ car transporter while stepping back to dismount from it. The court found that the employer should have carried out a specific risk assessment when the Odyssey was introduced into its fleet. But there was no breach of duty in circumstances where a risk assessment was in place covering dismounting from transporters generally, the claimant had received training for the Odyssey, and dismounting from it was no different from the practice for other vehicles with which the claimant was familiar. The decision highlights that the issue of breach is highly context-specific, and failure to conduct a risk assessment may not in itself be sufficient. Written by Thomas Westwell, barrister at Devereux Chambers.

This Practice Note provides a guide to the legal obligations on employers in relation to temperature in the workplace, including indoor and outdoor workplaces, the statutory obligations and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Approved Code of Practice and guidance. For information on the legal position where extreme or adverse weather, transport disruption or other major incidents prevent employees getting to work, and an overview of the practical steps a business may take, see Practice Note: Adverse weather and travel disruption. The statutory position An employer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of its employees. This is enshrined in section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974). This core duty extends to the provision of plant and systems of work that are safe and without risks to health, and the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure the health and safety at work of employees. A failure by the employer to comply with this duty

Pensions analysis: In the determination of Mr T (PO-21412), the Pensions Ombudsman upheld a complaint from an employee who complained that he was improperly denied the opportunity to opt-out of a pension scheme in which he had been enrolled for auto-enrolment purposes. Mr T had been informed that he could not opt-out and receive a refund of contributions as he had not opted-out within one month of joining the scheme. However, his employer, who was responsible for issuing the opt-out notice, had failed to issue the auto-enrolment information including the opt-out notice and did not formally admit its failure until the matter went before the Ombudsman. Wyn Derbyshire of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: In measures expected to come into force on 1 October 2026, time limits for making certain claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) will be increased from three months to six months. The changes are set out in section 152 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) and ERA 2025, Schedule 12 (not yet in force), and in the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026, SI 2026/759, the Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/758 and the Employee Study and Training (Procedural Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/473. This Practice Note will be updated shortly. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Section 28 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (CWSA 2026) amends the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (CYPA 1933), including section 18 on restrictions on employment of children. CWSA 2026, s 28 came into force on 29 April 2026