Debenhams Ottaway’s Employment Law Round Up – March 2026

Click the links below to read more about some upcoming changes in employment law next month.

• Changes to statutory sick pay (SSP)
• Increase of limits on tribunal awards and statutory payments from April 2026
• Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust – flexible working requirement justified
• High Court dismisses judicial review challenge to EHRC’s interim update on practical consequences of For Women Scotland
• Distinction between protected beliefs and their manifestation in discrimination cases
• Government consultations ahead of ERA 2025 implementation: what employers need to know

Changes to statutory sick pay (SSP)

From 6 April 2026, the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduced significant changes to SSP by amending the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. These include the:

• removal of the SSP waiting period – SSP will become payable from the first day of sickness absence (rather than after three “waiting days”)
• removal of the lower earnings limit (LEL) – SSP will no longer depend on an employee earning above the LEL
• introduction of a cap – SSP will be capped at 80% of an employee’s earnings.

If you haven’t already, review your sickness absence policies, payroll settings and manager guidance to ensure they reflect the new SSP rules now in force, including day‑one entitlement, wider eligibility and the 80% earnings cap.

Increase of limits on tribunal awards and statutory payments from April 2026

Two orders have been made that increase a range of employment related statutory limits and payments from April 2026, so now is a good time to check that your HR policies, payroll settings and budgeting assumptions are aligned with the upcoming changes.

Employment Rights Order 2026 increased the limits on certain tribunal awards and statutory payments where the effective date of termination is on or after 6 April 2026. These are:

• a week’s pay (used for redundancy and basic awards) – £751 (up from £719)
• maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal – £123,543 (up from £118,223)
• minimum basic award for certain automatically unfair dismissals (including health and safety) – £9,157 (up from £8,763)
• compensatory award cap for failure to have a written tips policy or to allocate tips fairly – £5,366 (up from £5,135).

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026 increased rates for statutory family related pay and statutory sick pay from 6 April 2026. Revised rates are:

• statutory maternity pay (SMP) – £194.32 per week (from £187.18)
• maternity allowance – £194.32 per week (from £187.18)
• statutory paternity, adoption, shared parental, parental bereavement and neonatal care pay – £194.32 per week (from £187.18)
• statutory sick pay (SSP) – £123.25 per week (from £118.75).

Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust – Flexible working requirement justified

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld a tribunal’s finding that an NHS trust’s requirement for community nurses to work flexibly, including occasional weekends, was objectively justified. Although the policy placed women (as primary childcare providers) at a particular disadvantage, it was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate operational aims, such as:

• providing a 24/7 community nursing service
• fair workload distribution
• reducing reliance on costlier senior nurses for weekend cover.

The EAT noted that none of the 278 Band 5 nurses, many of whom had childcare responsibilities, worked fixed days, and that the claimant’s refusal to consider any flexibility was relevant to justification; an employee’s intransigence can properly inform the proportionality assessment.

Practical considerations for your business

• Flexibility requirements can be justified where supported by genuine operational needs, even where the childcare disparity is engaged.
• Employers are not required to forensically analyse each employee’s circumstances in detail or accommodate entirely fixed patterns where that undermines service delivery.
• Evidence, consultation, and limited disadvantage strengthen a justification defence.
• An employee’s refusal to explore workable alternatives can legitimately be considered.

High Court dismisses challenge to EHRC’s interim guidance on For Women Scotland

The High Court has rejected a judicial review brought against the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) over its April 2025 Interim Update explaining the practical consequences of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling, which confirmed that the terms “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) refer to biological sex.

Although the EHRC withdrew the Interim Update in October 2025 pending a revised services code, the court held the claim was not academic because employers had relied on the guidance and the EHRC continued to defend its contents.

Practical implications for your business

• Offering single‑user, lockable unisex toilets where possible is expressly recognised as both a lawful and an inclusive approach.
• The High Court has confirmed the legal accuracy of the EHRC’s Interim Update, even though it has been withdrawn.
• In England and Wales, High Court decisions are binding on employment tribunals; in Scotland they are persuasive.
• Employers who have already made changes based on the Interim Update can take some reassurance that the underlying legal analysis was correct.
• The law on single sex facilities continues to develop, and further clarity is expected either through appellate litigation (several related cases are pending), or the EHRC’s long awaited revised Services Code.

You should monitor developments closely and seek legal advice when updating policies on facilities, inclusion, and gender reassignment related matters.

Distinction between protected beliefs and their manifestation in discrimination cases

Recent appellate decisions continue to shape how tribunals and courts should approach claims involving religious or philosophical beliefs, particularly where expressions of those beliefs provoke controversy or reputational risk. Two cases, one from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and one from the Court of Appeal, reinforce the centrality of identifying the true motivation behind an employer’s actions and distinguishing between a protected belief and concerns about the way that belief may be manifested.

EAT finds tribunal did not assess whether employer’s decisions were driven by the applicant’s Christian beliefs or by perceived inappropriate manifestation of those beliefs.

The claimant had previously posted on Facebook that homosexuality and same sex marriage were sinful leading him to be removed from a university course and him bringing court proceedings against the university. After reading media reports about the claimant’s previous court case, a mental health charity withdrew its job offer to him due to concerns about the impact on its LGBTQI+ service users. They asked him to attend a second interview for assurances, but ultimately chose not to reinstate the offer.

The tribunal found that withdrawing the job offer was direct discrimination, but that requiring a second interview and refusing to reinstate the offer were not discriminatory.

The EAT ruled that the tribunal had not properly analysed the charity’s reasons for each individual act. Specifically, it failed to consider whether the objection was to the claimant’s beliefs themselves (which are protected) or to an inappropriate manifestation of those beliefs. The EAT suggested that any concern seemed likely to relate to the beliefs themselves, which would amount to direct discrimination and cannot be justified.

The tribunal had also not correctly applied the proportionality test from Bank Mellat v HM Treasury when assessing whether the charity’s actions after the second interview were justified. The case was sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration.

This decision underscores the importance of careful, evidence based reasoning when assessing the risks associated with employing individuals with strongly expressed religious or protected beliefs.

Court of Appeal refuses to reopen discrimination appeal following alleged inconsistency with Higgs decision

In a separate judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected actress Seyi Omooba’s attempt to reopen its earlier refusal of permission to appeal the finding that she was not discriminated against on grounds of religion or belief when her theatre and agency contracts were terminated following backlash to an old Facebook post stating that homosexuality is sinful. Miss Omooba had been cast in The Color Purple, but when the post resurfaced the theatre and her agent ended their contracts due to reputational concerns, cast cohesion, and likely audience reaction.

The tribunal dismissed her claims, holding that the respondents acted because of the commercial and operational crisis created by public criticism rather than her beliefs. The EAT upheld that decision, and the judge refused permission to appeal

Relying on CPR 52.30 (which allows reopening only in exceptional cases), she argued that the refusal was inconsistent with the later Court of Appeal decision in Higgs v Farmor’s School. The Court of Appeal rejected the application.

Practical significance

• Tribunal findings on the “reason why” remain decisive and are rarely disturbed on appeal.
• Reputational and operational concerns can be legitimate, separate reasons for action, distinct from the protected belief.
• CPR 52.30 offers only a very narrow path to reopen refusals of permission to appeal.

Government consultations ahead of ERA 2025 implementation: what employers need to know

The Government has launched several consultations to shape how key parts of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) will operate when they come into force from 2027. These changes will affect restructuring processes, flexible working handling, and how your business manages contractual changes.

Collective redundancy threshold

A consultation (closing 21 May 2026) is considering how to set the new organisation‑wide threshold that will trigger collective redundancy consultation in addition to the existing 20+ redundancies at one establishment rule.

Larger or multi‑site employers may need to collectively consult even where dismissals are spread across locations. Plan future restructures carefully and expect wider consultation obligations.

Flexible working

The Government is consulting on how employers should handle statutory flexible working requests under the new ERA 2025 framework, due in 2027. Changes will introduce a reasonableness test, require written reasons for refusal, and mandate a consultation process before rejecting a request. Claims for unreasonable refusal could lead to compensation of up to eight weeks’ pay.

Managers will need clearer documentation, fairer reasoning and stronger processes before refusing requests. Start reviewing policies and training now.

Fire and rehire

A further consultation is assessing which contractual changes will count as “restricted variations” under the new fire‑and‑rehire protections taking effect in January 2027. If employers try to impose such changes and dismiss employees who refuse, the dismissal could be automatically unfair.

Employers will face tighter limits on using fire‑and‑rehire to implement contractual changes, particularly around pay and significant shift changes. Future contract reviews should factor in reduced flexibility.