Latest Posts

The Russell Brand Verdict Raises a Question Every Employer Should Be Asking

On 5 November 2026, Russell Brand was found guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault. The verdict comes just six days after significant changes to UK sexual harassment legislation came into force, placing greater responsibility on employers to prevent harassment in the workplace.

While the conviction concerns criminal offences committed before these changes, it raises a wider question that employers cannot afford to ignore. What happens when the person accused of inappropriate behaviour holds a position of power, influence, or commercial importance?

Too often, the difficulty is not that organisations lack policies prohibiting sexual harassment. It is whether employees genuinely feel able to raise concerns, particularly when doing so could put their career, reputation, or working relationships at risk.

What changed on 30 October 2026?

The Employment Rights Act 2025 has strengthened employers’ existing obligations under the Equality Act 2010 in two important ways.

1. Employers must now take `all reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment

Since October 2024, employers have been under a preventative duty to take reasonable steps to protect employees from sexual harassment. From 30 October 2026, that obligation has been strengthened to require all reasonable steps.

This is more than a change in wording. Employers must now be able to demonstrate that they have identified the risks within their organisation and taken all the preventative measures that are reasonable in their circumstances.

2. Employers can now be liable for harassment by third parties

The legislation also extends protection to harassment by individuals outside the organisation, including clients, customers, contractors and other third parties.

Importantly, this protection is not limited to sexual harassment. It also covers harassment relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, subject to the Act’s exclusions.

In addition, from 30 October 2026 workers are protected from suffering detriment for making allegations of, or disclosures relating to, sexual harassment. This change effectively brings complaints of sexual harassment within the whistleblowing framework, providing additional protection for those who speak up and reinforcing the Government’s objective of encouraging concerns to be raised at an early stage. This is a significant development for employers, particularly when considering how concerns are received, investigated, and managed in practice.

Where third party harassment takes place during the course of employment, an employer may be liable if it cannot demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from happening. For businesses where employees regularly entertain clients, attend industry events or work closely with external stakeholders, this is particularly significant.

The challenge of power and influence in the workplace

One of the most difficult situations an employer can face is an allegation against someone who is commercially valuable or holds a senior position.

What happens when the complaint concerns a director, a high-performing employee, or a client responsible for a significant proportion of the company’s revenue? Will the organisation respond with the same seriousness as it would if the complaint concerned a junior employee?

The reality is that an anti-harassment policy is of little value if employees believe that certain individuals are effectively untouchable. Employers must recognise that power imbalances, workplace hierarchies and concerns about career progression can discourage individuals from speaking up. These are precisely the risks that an effective preventative approach should identify and address.

Culture is now a governance issue

The most significant feature of this recent strengthened legislation may not be the legal wording itself but the shift in focus from policies to culture. Increasingly, regulators, tribunals and employees are examining not what an organisation says about harassment, but how concerns are handled in practice.

When allegations involve senior individuals, rainmakers, founders or commercially significant clients, the real test of an organisation’s culture becomes apparent. The question is whether concerns can be investigated independently and objectively, regardless of the status of the individual involved.

For boards and senior leadership teams, sexual harassment prevention is therefore no longer solely an HR issue. It is a governance, risk, and reputation issue. Organisations that fail to address power dynamics may find that the greatest risk lies not in the allegation itself, but in the perception that different standards apply to different people.

What should employers be doing now?

The strengthened requirements do not mean employers must guarantee that harassment will never occur. They do, however, need to demonstrate that they have taken every preventative step that is reasonable for their organisation.

In practice, this means:

• Assessing workplace risks: Identifying where harassment is most likely to occur, particularly where there are power imbalances, lone working, client entertainment, or alcohol-related work events. If a risk assessment has not been undertaken, it will be very difficult to demonstrate that all proper risks were identified.
• Reviewing reporting procedures: Ensuring employees feel safe that they can and have a confidential route to raise concerns, including where an allegation involves senior management.
• Providing effective training: Equipping managers to recognise inappropriate behaviour, respond appropriately to concerns and understand their own responsibilities.
• Addressing third-party risks: Making clear to clients, customers, contractors and other common third parties that interact with staff, that inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated simply because of their commercial importance.
• Reviewing and documenting action: Keeping appropriate records of risk assessments, training, complaints, and the measures taken to prevent further incidents.
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s increasing role

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published updated technical guidance to help employers understand what compliance with the new preventative duty looks like in practice. The guidance emphasises that employers should take a proactive rather than reactive approach, including:

• carrying out regular risk assessments
• implementing effective reporting mechanisms
• providing meaningful training, and
• monitoring whether preventative measures are actually working.

Failure to comply can have serious consequences. In addition to potential enforcement action by the EHRC, where an employee succeeds in a sexual harassment claim an Employment Tribunal may increase compensation by up to 25% if the employer has breached its preventative duty.

However, the financial consequences are only part of the picture. The damage to employee confidence, workplace culture and an organisation’s reputation can be equally significant.

Ultimately therefore, the question employers should be asking is not whether they have a sexual harassment policy, but whether they have created a workplace where concerns can be raised, heard and investigated without fear or favour, regardless of the seniority, influence or commercial value of the individual involved.

Read More

Rising costs, new rights: the employment challenge facing hospitality and retail employers

The UK’s hospitality and retail sectors are navigating one of the most challenging operating environments in recent memory. Businesses are simultaneously grappling with increases in the national living wage, higher employer national insurance contributions, rising energy and property costs, inflationary pressures, supply chain disruption and continuing labour shortages. At the same time, many consumers are facing their own cost-of-living pressures, leading to more cautious spending habits and increased sensitivity to price rises.

The result is a difficult balancing act. Employers are being asked to absorb growing employment and operating costs while maintaining service standards, protecting profitability and remaining competitive in a market where customers have less disposable income and greater choice than ever.

A recent article in The Independent, illustrates how finely balanced many business models have become. The article reported that a £4.10 flat white may generate as little as 18p profit once expenses such as wages, utilities, business rates, VAT and other overheads have been taken into account.

Whilst the example relates to a coffee shop, the underlying reality is familiar across both hospitality and retail. Rising food, ingredient, logistics and supply chain costs have increased operating expenditure, while consumer demand remains unpredictable. Labour costs continue to represent one of the largest areas of expenditure, particularly in service-led businesses where customer experience depends heavily on appropriately staffed and engaged workforces. In many cases, staffing costs account for a significant proportion of the sale price of goods and services.

Against this backdrop, the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) introduces a further layer of cost, compliance and legal risk with proposals for businesses to offer guaranteed hours and pay late shift cancellation fees. For businesses already operating on narrow margins, these reforms raise important questions about how employers can maintain operational flexibility whilst accommodating enhanced worker protections.

A sector under pressure

The economic backdrop above is particularly challenging for hospitality and retail operators given that both sectors are heavily dependent on consumer confidence and discretionary spending.

Households facing increased mortgage costs, higher rents, energy bills and food prices are becoming more selective about where they spend their money. Consumers may reduce visits to restaurants, cafés, pubs and leisure venues, delay non-essential retail purchases or trade down to lower-cost alternatives. This can create significant fluctuations in demand, making workforce planning increasingly difficult.

For hospitality operators, trading patterns can change dramatically depending on the weather, local events, tourism levels and seasonal demand. Retail employers face similar challenges, particularly around Christmas, Black Friday sales, school holidays and other peak trading periods. The ability to adapt staffing levels quickly has therefore become a critical component of business resilience; and it is precisely this need for flexibility that many employers fear may be constrained by aspects of the ERA 2025 such as the proposals above.

The changing employment law landscape

The ERA 2025 represents one of the most significant employment law reforms in a generation. The changes that have started to be implemented since April of this year, and which continue into early next year, are particularly significant for hospitality and retail employers, whose business models often rely on large, customer-facing workforces, flexible scheduling arrangements and significant numbers of part-time, seasonal and variable-hours employees.

Key changes include:

• Guaranteed hours obligations and compensation for cancelled shifts (enactment date in 2027 to be confirmed): Employers will be required to offer qualifying workers contracts which more closely reflect their actual working patterns over a reference period and may face compensation obligations where shifts are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice. This could prove particularly challenging in sectors where staffing requirements are heavily influenced by customer footfall, weather conditions and seasonal demand.
• Extended tribunal time limits: Since 1 October 2026, most employment tribunal claims now have a six-month limitation period rather than three months. This extends the period during which claims may be brought and may increase uncertainty when managing workplace disputes.
• Enhanced duties to prevent harassment and liability for third party harassment: Since 31 October 2026, Employers have been required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and to protect workers from third-party harassment linked to protected characteristics. This is particularly important in customer-facing environments where employees regularly interact with members of the public, guests and customers.
• Earlier unfair dismissal protection: From 1 January 2027, employees will be able to bring unfair dismissal claims after six months’ service rather than two years. This substantially reduces the period during which employers can assess capability, attendance and cultural fit before facing unfair dismissal risk. Given the traditionally high levels of staff turnover within hospitality and retail, this change is likely to affect a significant number of employers.
• Removal of the compensatory cap for unfair dismissal: Also from 1 January 2027, the removal of the statutory cap on compensation will significantly increase financial exposure arising from employment disputes.

Operational challenges for hospitality and retail employers

Several of the reforms create challenges that go beyond pure legal compliance.

Guaranteed hours obligations. Hospitality and retail employers frequently use flexible staffing models to match labour costs with demand. Businesses may increase staffing during busy periods and reduce hours when demand falls unexpectedly. Restaurants, pubs, hotels and shops routinely experience unforeseen fluctuations in customer numbers due to weather, transport disruption, local events or changes in consumer spending behaviour.

Guaranteed hours obligations and restrictions on short notice shift changes may, therefore, make workforce planning more complex and potentially more expensive. Employers may find themselves carrying higher labour costs during quieter trading periods or reducing recruitment activity to minimise risk.

Unfair Dismissal protection. The earlier introduction of unfair dismissal protection from 6 months may also affect hiring decisions. Employers will be placing greater emphasis on rigorous recruitment processes, structured probationary reviews and comprehensive performance management during the first six months of employment. Businesses may become less willing to recruit inexperienced workers where the perceived legal and financial risks of an unsuccessful appointment increase.

Strengthened harassment obligations. For hospitality employers in particular, the strengthened harassment obligations create additional compliance considerations. Customer-facing employees can be exposed to inappropriate behaviour from guests, diners and members of the public, particularly during evening trading, events and hospitality functions. Retail employers face similar risks where staff engage with customers in stores, shopping centres or delivery environments. Employers will therefore need to ensure that policies, reporting mechanisms and management training are robust and effective.

Broader implications for youth employment and entry-level opportunities

The implications of these Employment reforms also extend beyond business profitability.

Hospitality and retail have traditionally served as important gateways into the labour market. For many young people, a first role in a café, restaurant, hotel, supermarket or retail store provides valuable experience in customer service, communication, teamwork and workplace responsibility.

However, increasing employment costs and legal risks is seeing employers adopting a more cautious approach to recruitment. Where margins are already under pressure, businesses are less inclined to recruit candidates with limited workplace experience and in some cases, are reducing the number of entry-level opportunities available altogether.

This is particularly relevant at a time when youth unemployment and economic inactivity among younger workers has become a significant concern, not least because a reduction in entry-level recruitment has wider implications for social mobility and workforce development across the economy.

Conclusion

The often-cited example of a £4.10 flat white generating only a modest profit margin serves as a useful illustration of the commercial realities facing hospitality and retail operators. Many businesses already operate within extremely limited financial headroom while simultaneously responding to changing consumer behaviour and ongoing cost-of-living pressures.

The changes under the Employment Rights Act 2025 has already had significant impact on how employers recruit, manage and retain staff. Whilst the reforms were intended to strengthen worker protections, they have inevitably increased compliance obligations, legal risks and employment costs.

For hospitality and retail employers, the challenge now lies not only as regards legal compliance. It also lies in finding sustainable ways to balance enhanced employment protections with the operational flexibility required to serve customers, manage fluctuating demand, and maintain commercial viability in an increasingly cost-conscious market.

Read More

UK Whistleblowing Reform 2026: Lessons from the Simon Andriesz and Lutnick-Epstein Case

The death of the Lutnick‑Epstein whistleblower, a man who raised concerns about serious operational failings before taking his own life, is a tragedy. It holds up a mirror to a system designed to provide protection, but which can still leave whistleblowers exposed, isolated and under immense pressure.

MPs have since called for an investigation and the Government has also recently launched its consultation on reforming the whistleblowing regime which could not be more timely. 

The BBC reporting on the Lutnick‑Epstein whistleblower’s death describes a familiar pattern where the employee raised concerns, he was given assurances and processes were followed. Yet, the employee was still left feeling unheard, unsupported and became increasingly distressed as he raised concerns of retaliation. Though the organisation insisted concerns were ‘dealt with appropriately,’ ‘appropriate’ is not the same as safe.

While employers may follow processes, three systemic weaknesses can be identified from this tragedy:

• A compliant process by an employer can still produce a hostile environment. Work culture is entirely dependent on leadership foresight and conscious design to embed safety from retaliation.
• Psychological safety is missing as whistleblowers often carry the burden alone with little support.
• Accountability is fragmented. Currently, no single body has overall responsibility for overseeing whistleblower welfare and support.

It is hoped that the Government’s reform will address these gaps as it considers some key questions detailed below.

A framework built for yesterday’s risks

The whistleblowing provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 were pioneering at the time. However, the world has since changed and potential wrongdoing now centres more around AI safety, cyber‑security, misuse of public funds and abuse of authority. These issues are often more complex, technical and consequential, prompting consideration of whether the current categories of protected disclosures remain fit for purpose. The consultation is therefore considering whether the list of qualifying wrongdoing should be expanded.

Who counts as a Whistleblower?

Should protection from retaliation extend beyond traditional ’employees’ and ‘workers?’ The Government recognises that vulnerability is not defined by employment status but by power imbalance and it is therefore looking across the different types of working arrangements to consider which other categories of worker should be drawn into the protection given the importance of disclosure. Volunteers, certain self‑employed individuals, contractors in regulated sectors, and gig‑economy workers will all be considered.

The public interest test: A barrier masquerading as a principle?

The requirement that a worker reasonably believes their disclosure is ‘in the public interest’ has generated years of litigation and the consultation asks whether this test is actually working as intended. 

While this test is conceptually sound, it remains practically ambiguous and creates uncertainty for workers and unnecessary litigation for employers. Updated guidance would help, but the deeper issue is still cultural; workers often fear that their motives will be scrutinised more harshly than the wrongdoing they report. 

Disclosure routes: complexity that discourages early reporting

The consultation highlights the additional requirements that apply to disclosures made to prescribed persons, including the need for a worker to `reasonably believe’ that the information disclosed is substantially true. This is a significant deterrent where it pushes workers back into internal channels that may be compromised, conflicted or culturally unsafe.

While the suggestion of additional early‑stage routes, including trade union officials, is sensible, the broader question is, whether what is ultimately needed is a central whistleblowing body: a single, independent and trusted point of contact.

As the Lutnick‑Epstein case shows, there remain significant risks where no one currently owns the duty of care.

Policies, procedures and the missing duty of care

Perhaps the most significant proposal is the introduction of a statutory duty requiring employers to maintain appropriate and effective whistleblowing procedures. This could represent a significant cultural shift, moving whistleblowing from recommended good practice to a legal obligation.

The FCA already imposes similar obligations in financial services. Ireland has also adopted a similar model. Extending this across the UK, at least to public sector employers and private employers with 50 or more employees could create conditions for culture change leading to consistency, accountability and clarity.

However, there will need to be a careful balancing act to avoid imposing disproportionate bureaucracy and costs on employers. The challenge will be designing a duty that is proportionate, practical and focused on outcomes rather than paperwork.

While a policy is not protection, the Lutnick-Epstein case demonstrates the risks that can arise when organisations fail to take ownership of whistleblower welfare. A statutory duty could help ensure that organisations consciously build cultures where protection is woven into the fabric of the workplace.

Interim Relief: A lifeline that comes too late?

The Government’s proposal to extend the deadline for interim relief applications from seven to fourteen days is a welcome, albeit modest, reform. Dismissed whistleblowers are often dealing with shock, confusion and acute distress, making the current seven-day deadline appear unduly restrictive.

While extending the deadline to fourteen days should improve access to this important remedy, questions remain as to whether it goes far enough. For many whistleblowers, securing legal advice and preparing an application within two weeks may still be a significant challenge.

Financial rewards for reporting economic crime

The consultation includes a proposal for the Serious Fraud Office to introduce financial rewards for individuals who report economic crime. While this is likely to be controversial, some may argue that it is long overdue. The US model suggests that financial incentives can significantly increase reporting and strengthen enforcement outcomes. Replicating a similar system in the UK would require the Government to decide whether it wants a whistleblowing framework that actively encourages disclosure or merely tolerates it.

In conclusion, there will need to be a careful balancing act to ensure that any reforms provide meaningful protection without creating unintended consequences:

• Over-expansion could encourage frivolous claims;
• Excessive duties could place undue burdens on smaller employers;
• A central whistleblowing body could become overwhelmed; and
• Financial incentives could distort motives.

One thing is clear, however: the current framework is outdated, fragmented and culturally naïve. It assumes that legal protection alone is sufficient when, as the case of the Lutnick-Epstein whistleblower demonstrates, legal rights mean little if individuals do not feel safe enough to use them.

If you have any views on the proposed UK whistleblowing reforms, the Government’s consultation closes on 8 January 2027.

Read More