Debenhams Ottaway’s Employment Law Round Up June 2025

Click the links below to read more about the changes in employment law for June 2025:

• New data reveals Gen Z least likely to raise workplace concerns with employers
• No duty to make reasonable adjustments if it would not remove the disadvantage for disabled employees
• Tribunal wrongly concluded that claimant with autism and ADHD was not disabled
• Majority of UK employees would consider leaving if DEI commitments were reversed
• Government sets out implementation timeline for ERB
• Proposed bill would introduce employment protections linked to assisted dying

New data reveals gen Z least likely to raise workplace concerns with employers

A recent YouGov survey commissioned by whistleblowing charity Protect highlights a significant generational divide in attitudes toward workplace whistleblowing, with important implications for employers across England, Scotland, and Wales.

The study found that Gen Z employees (aged 18–24) are consistently less likely to raise concerns internally across all types of workplace misconduct, including bullying, fraud, and health and safety breaches, when compared to older generations. This challenges the common perception that younger workers are more outspoken about workplace injustices.

Although Gen Z identified sexual harassment as the most serious workplace issue, only 66% said they would report it—compared to 75% of Millennials. Health and safety ranked as the top concern across all age groups, yet only 56% of Gen Z said they would raise such concerns, in stark contrast to 86% of workers aged 55 and over.

The research also indicates a marked shift in preferred reporting channels. While older generations tend to report issues through internal processes, Gen Z is significantly more inclined to turn to external avenues. They are five times more likely than over-55s to share concerns on social media and 13 times more likely to consider contacting journalists.

No duty to make reasonable adjustments if it would not remove the disadvantage for disabled employees

The EAT in the Hindmarch v North-East Ambulance NHS Trust case has reaffirmed that employers are not required to make reasonable adjustments that have no real prospect of removing or reducing the disadvantage experienced by a disabled employee.

Mr Hindmarch, a non-emergency ambulance driver, refused to return to work during the COVID-19 pandemic unless provided with an FFP3 mask instead of the standard FFP2, citing severe anxiety. However, he did not unequivocally state he would return if given a FFP3 mask. His employer declined and he was later dismissed on ill-health grounds.

The employment tribunal rejected claims against the employer for failing to make reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal. The EAT upheld that decision, finding that the adjustment requested would not have materially changed the situation. The employer did not fail to make reasonable adjustments as there was no real prospect that providing the FFP3 mask would have enabled Mr Hindmarch to return to work, given his acute anxiety about COVID-19. The tribunal had applied the correct legal principles under sections 20(3) and 20(5) of the Equality Act 2010 and had not erred in its approach.

Tribunal wrongly concluded that claimant with autism and ADHD was not disabled

The EAT for Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd has allowed an appeal after the tribunal had wrongly concluded that a claimant with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and ADHD was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal had accepted that Mr Stedman had a mental impairment but found it did not substantially affect day-to-day activities. The EAT found the tribunal misapplied key legal principles, including:

An impairment need only have a substantial (more than minor or trivial) adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity.
A tribunal must not weigh-up what a claimant can do in one day-to-day activity against what they struggle with in another to form a general judgment about their overall ability to carry out daily tasks.
In judging whether the adverse effect is substantial, the proper comparison is between the claimant as they are and how they would be without the impairment.

The EAT observed in its deliberations that a clinical diagnosis of ASD or ADHD is itself relevant both to the question of whether a claimant has a mental impairment and that has a ‘substantial adverse effect’, given it reflects significant functional difficulty. The EAT permitted the appeal and sent the case back to a fresh tribunal, to rule on whether Mr Stedman is disabled according to the legal definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010. We await the outcome of this tribunal.

Majority of UK employees would consider leaving if diversity, equity and inclusion commitments were reversed

A new survey has revealed that a significant proportion of UK employees—60% overall—would consider leaving their employer if commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) were weakened. Conducted by HR technology provider IRIS Software Group, the study found that:

39% would seriously consider leaving, while a further 20% said they would definitely do so if their organisation rolled back DEI efforts.
Gen Z employees were the most likely to say they would consider leaving, with 68% indicating they would do so in response to reduced DEI commitments.
Among older age groups, 64% of millennials and 47% of Gen X respondents shared the same view.

The findings point to clear generational and demographic differences in employee attitudes toward DEI.

The data also revealed marked differences based on ethnicity. 70% percent of respondents from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds said they would either consider leaving or would definitely leave if DEI initiatives were diluted. In comparison, 56% of white respondents expressed the same intention.

These findings come at a time when mentions of DEI in FTSE 100 reports have reportedly declined, and political debate continues over the scope and impact of corporate DEI strategies. Nevertheless, the survey shows that:

an overwhelming 92% of respondents felt their workplace was inclusive
62% reported that their employer had improved DEI policies over the past 12 months, and 45% expect those policies to be strengthened further
just 3% said they would prefer to see DEI efforts scaled back.

The survey also underscored the importance of DEI in fostering a sense of belonging at work. Nearly a third of respondents—30%—identified clear DEI policies as a key contributor to feeling included and valued within their organisation.

Government sets out implementation timeline for ERB

The government has published its implementation roadmap for the Employment Rights Bill (ERB), outlining a phased timetable for commencement of key reforms across England, Scotland, and Wales.

While many headline measures will not take effect until 2026 or 2027, employers should begin preparing for wide-ranging changes in dismissal rights, workplace protections, and employee entitlements. Keeping an eye on the government’s expected implementation timeline will allow employers to prepare for changes before they take place. Consultations are planned to take place between Summer 2025 and early 2026.

Expected implementation timeline

April 2026:
Increase in the collective redundancy protective award
Day one rights to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave
Statutory sick pay reform
Creation of the Fair Work Agency
Introduction of electronic balloting for trade unions

October 2026:
Ban on fire and re-hire
Requirement for employers to take ‘all’ reasonable steps to prevent sexual and third-party harassment
Extension of tribunal time limits to six months

2027:
Expected start of the most significant changes for employers, including:
Day one unfair dismissal rights
Zero hours contracts protections
Reforms affecting agency workers

Proposed bill would introduce employment protections linked to assisted dying

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a Private Members’ Bill, passed the House of Commons on 20 June 2025 and entered the House of Lords. If approved, it would allow terminally ill adults with capacity in England and Wales to request assistance to end their life under a regulated process.

Importantly for employers, the bill proposes amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). It would be automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for either:

• Exercising or proposing to exercise the right not to participate in assisted dying; or
• Participating in the provision of assisted dying or performing a function under the bill.

No qualifying period of service would be required to bring such a claim.

The bill would also protect workers from being subjected to a detriment on the same grounds, unless that detriment amounts to dismissal. Compensation for detriment could not exceed the amount available in an unfair dismissal claim.

Further amendments may be introduced as the bill progresses. It remains unclear whether it will receive Royal Assent or, if so, when it would take effect.