Employment Case Law Update | Autumn 2025

A round-up of recent employment case law decisions

AB v Grafters Group Ltd ta CSI Catering Services International

Meaning of “in the course of employment”

Background to the case

AB was a hospitality agency worker employed by Grafters Group Ltd. After missing her arranged transport to a shift, she accepted a lift from a colleague, CD, who had previously sent her sexually suggestive messages whilst working for the same employer. During the journey, CD informed AB that her shift had been cancelled. Despite her request to be dropped off, CD drove AB to a remote location and subjected her to sexual harassment, which included inappropriate touching and showing her a pornographic video. AB reported the incident to both the police and her employer. The employer failed to investigate or support her.

Decision

The employment tribunal accepted that harassment occurred but initially ruled that the employer was not liable under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010, because CD was not acting “in the course of employment”.

On appeal, the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) overturned this decision and found that the tribunal had misapplied the legal test and failed to consider whether CD’s actions had a sufficient connection to work. Prior work-related interactions, the nature of the lift, and AB’s belief she was attending a shift were all considered.

The EAT clarified that:

• The phrase “in the course of employment” should be interpreted broadly.
• Employer knowledge or approval of the act is not required.
• Acts outside the workplace or working hours may still fall within the scope if there is a “nexus or connection with work”.

The case was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.

What does this mean for employers?

• Employer liability for harassment can be extended beyond traditional work settings to informal arrangements (e.g. lifts, social events) if they are considered “in the course of employment”, i.e. if they are sufficiently connected to work.
• Employers must take proactive steps to prevent harassment, including in off-site or informal contexts.
• Policies and training should reflect the broader interpretation of workplace boundaries.

Leicester City Council v Parmar

Race discrimination

Background to the case

Mrs Parmar, a British national of Indian origin, was a long-serving head of service at Leicester City Council. She was temporarily transferred from her role and subjected to a disciplinary investigation. The allegations were vague, and no clear evidence was disclosed to Mrs Parmar or the tribunal.

Mrs Parmar argued that her treatment amounted to direct race discrimination, particularly stating:

• White colleagues in similar or worse situations were dealt with either informally or through mediation; only Asian senior managers were subjected to formal disciplinary investigations.
• Relevant documents from the investigation process were withheld from her and the tribunal.

Decision

The employment tribunal found in favour of Mrs Parmar, concluding that she had been treated less favourably because of her race. The decision was upheld by the employment appeal tribunal, and the court of appeal confirmed it, ruling that:

• The comparators (white colleagues) were in materially similar circumstances and the difference in treatment raised an inference of discrimination.
• The burden of proof shifted to the council to provide a non-discriminatory explanation, which it failed to do convincingly.

What does this mean for employers?

The case reinforces several key principles under the Equality Act 2010 including the burden of proof, the use of comparators, transparency and disclosure, and fairness of procedures:

• Once a claimant establishes facts suggesting discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove otherwise.
• Employers must ensure consistent treatment across employees in similar roles and circumstances.
• Failure to disclose relevant documents can lead to adverse inferences and undermine the employer’s defence.
• Disciplinary actions must be based on clear, objective evidence and applied consistently, regardless of race or other protected characteristics.

Wainwright v Cennox

Discriminatory acts as potential fundamental breaches in a constructive dismissal claim

Background to the case

The claimant was employed as head of installations at the respondent before being sadly diagnosed with cancer in August 2018 and subsequently began sick leave. In the claimant’s absence, a colleague was offered the position of head of installations to avoid them leaving, which was done without reference to the claimant. The claimant discovered this in November 2018 via LinkedIn.

The claimant confronted the respondent’s HR director who assured the claimant, inaccurately, that their role would be unaffected. The claimant was not informed that the new role was permanent or the assumptions behind creating it as the respondent’s HR director did not wish to upset the claimant.

During a discussion with the claimant regarding their return to work in July 2019, they were provided with a new job description and organisational chart. The claimant was unhappy with this and saw this as a demotion. The claimant raised a grievance as a result, which the respondent’s managing director expressed surprise and disappointment in. Following delays in responding to the grievance, the claimant resigned in September 2019 due to unhappiness with her treatment and learning that a colleague had been given her job. The claimant referenced the delays with the grievance process as “the final straw”.

The employment tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims of direct disability discrimination, victimisation, wrongful dismissal and constructive unfair and discriminatory dismissal (that constructive dismissal amounted to a discriminatory act).

Whilst the tribunal upheld a claim of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability, the tribunal stated that the claimant’s perception that they had been demoted was inaccurate, and this was the reason for the resignation. Therefore, the constructive dismissal claim failed. The claimant appealed the decision.

Decision

The appeal was allowed by the employment appeal tribunal, which found that the earlier tribunal had not explained why the discriminatory acts did not amount to repudiatory breaches of contract. The finding that the claimant’s perception was inaccurate, and this was the only reason for resignation was not comprehensive enough.

The earlier tribunal should have considered whether the discriminatory acts amounted to repudiatory breaches of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

The claims for constructive unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal were subsequently upheld by a different employment tribunal. The claimant was awarded a total of £1,224,861.94, including an injury to feelings award of £40,000.

What does this mean for employers?

Discrimination against an employee on the grounds of a protected characteristic will usually constitute a repudiatory breach of contract.  Employers must therefore be wary when an employee takes a leave of absence in connection with a protected characteristic, such as a disability, to not directly or indirectly discriminate against them whilst absent. This is especially relevant in the context of cancer, which is an automatic disability for life even if the employee is in remission.

Employers should also tread carefully where someone is employed to manage an absent employee’s workload to make sure the absent employee is not treated unfavourably. Preventative measures could include keeping the absent employee informed of any such arrangements whilst they are aware to ensure they are kept fully informed whilst they are away.

Day v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust

Post-employment detriments arising from whistleblowing disclosures

Background to the case

The claimant was employed as a specialist registrar between 2013 and 2014 at the respondent and made several protected disclosures concerning patient safety. The claimant brought a claim against the respondent and alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed and suffered whistleblowing detriment. The matter was settled in October 2018.

Following the settlement, the claimant brought another claim in 2019 in respect of respondent’s actions in publishing several statements on its website and the communication with various parties and public officials shortly after the settlement. The claimant alleged that the respondent had published false and defamatory statements, misrepresented findings of external investigation, incorrectly linked his disclosure to other issues, deliberately failed to remove or update public statements after concerns were raised by the CQC and circulated untrue and detrimental material to MPs and public officials. The claimant ultimately argued that this constituted a detriment following a protected disclosure during his employment.

The employment tribunal dismissed the claim from the claimant, justifying this by stating that the respondent’s actions were caused by public interest in the case rather the claimant’s protected disclosures. The tribunal also held that the claimant’s claim fell outside the scope of s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as the alleged detriments occurred after the claimant’s employment had ended and so were not “in the employment field”. The claimant appealed the decision.

Decision

The employment appeal tribunal dismissed the claimant’s appeal, generally upholding the earlier tribunal’s findings. However, the employment appeal tribunal did state that the earlier tribunal had erred in concluding that the claim fell outside the scope of s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as the claim did fall within the “employment field”.

What does this mean for employers?

This case demonstrates that the protection afforded to whistleblowers under s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 extends to former employees in terms of detriments in connection with their employment. This means that employers must be careful to ensure that they do not disadvantage employees who make a protected disclosure, even after the employment relationship has ended, as they are still able to bring a claim to the employment tribunal.

However, these employees would still have to demonstrate that their protected disclosure materially influences the employer’s detrimental treatment of them in order for a claim to be successful, which may be challenging to establish post-termination.