Employment Law: 2025 Case Law Round-up

With a new Labour government taking the helm last year and the Employment Rights Bill making some big headlines, it’s no surprise that 2025 case law has been another busy one. And, it’s kept employers and HR teams firmly on their toes.

From whistleblowing to so-called ‘flirty banter’, we’ve rounded up some of the most talked-about employment cases from the past 12 months. Each one offers practical lessons that can help you not only remain compliant, but also confident that you’ll stay ahead of the game.

Here’s our take on the cases that have helped shape 2025 case law and what they mean for you and your business. This article will get to the bottom of questions such as:

• Can employees share their own personal views on same-sex relationships on social media platforms?
• How did a complaint about working in cold conditions lead to a £21,500 award?
• And can a throwaway comment like “lovely ladies” really be enough to lose your job?

2025 Case Law: Gender critical beliefs

You might remember from our 2024 round-up that we said to keep an eye on the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School. Well, 2025 has brought some important updates – and the outcome has given employers plenty to think about when it comes to managing belief and conduct in the workplace.

You may recall that the case itself centred on a Christian school assistant who shared her personal views on LGBTQ+ relationships and sex education on her private Facebook page. It comes as no surprise that her post grabbed people’s attention and not necessarily in a good way. A complaint was ultimately lodged with the school, describing her comments as “homophobic and prejudiced”.

In response, the school launched an investigation into Ms Higgs’ conduct and began a disciplinary process. When considering the next steps, a careful balance had to be struck between two important duties – protecting freedom of belief and expression and upholding the school’s safeguarding and anti-discrimination obligations. Ultimately, Ms Higgs was dismissed for gross misconduct.

She went on to bring a claim for direct discrimination based on her protected beliefs. The Employment Tribunal initially dismissed her claim, finding that her dismissal wasn’t because of her beliefs themselves, but because of the language she used to express them. It was considered that the school had ‘reasonable concern’ that Ms Higgs’ comments could affect their reputation.

However, Ms Higgs appealed – first to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and then to the Court of Appeal – who ultimately agreed with her, finding that her dismissal was not objectively justified and was indeed linked to the manifestation of her protected beliefs. In short, her dismissal was discriminatory, as beliefs are a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Key takeaway

Social media is often where employment law meets the grey area of real life. But what someone posts in their personal time can quickly become an issue for their employer, especially if their profile links them to your organisation.

The key lesson for employers is to distinguish carefully between an individual’s beliefs (which are protected) and how those beliefs are expressed. If you find yourself in a position of having to investigate such a matter, remember that any disciplinary action needs to be fair and proportionate, with all alternatives considered before dismissal.

And with ‘day one’ unfair dismissalrights expected under the upcoming Employment Rights Bill, employers may see more cases like this reaching tribunals.

Our advice is to review your policies around social media and conduct, and make sure managers are trained to handle belief-related issues sensitively. Remember that you should always handle these situations with proportionately and document your decision-making process well.

2025 Case Law: Whistleblowing on health and safety grounds

How cold is too cold to work in? And at what point does that become more than just uncomfortable? That was at the heart of the case of Leila Ayad v Whipped Café (Covent Garden).

Miss Ayad worked as a part-time shop assistant and raised concerns about having to work in very cold conditions. The café had a rule that the main door must stay open to attract passing customers, which in winter meant the indoor temperature sometimes dropped as low as 12°C.

When Miss Ayad asked for a heater or for the door to be closed, management refused. In a WhatsApp message, she explained she was wearing three layers and a thermal vest to stay warm and pointed out that health and safety guidance recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 16°C.

A few months later, she was dismissed without pay or notice, for alleged “poor timekeeping, attitude towards the role, and respect for (your) team and workplace.”

The Employment Tribunal took a different view. It found that Miss Ayad’s messages were a protected disclosure, meaning she had been unfairly dismissed for raising a legitimate health and safety concern. The Tribunal awarded her over £21,500 in compensation, covering unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unpaid wages and holiday pay.

Key takeaway

When an employee raises a concern about health and safety, it counts as whistleblowing, which means they’re legally protected from being treated unfairly or dismissed as a result. Employers must never penalise staff for raising genuine concerns, no matter the size of the business.

The upcoming Employment Rights Bill is set to strengthen whistleblower protections further, by banning the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that prevent people from reporting harassment or discrimination.

Cases like Miss Ayad’s – where an employee was vindicated for speaking up about unsafe working conditions – would likely be supported even more firmly once the Bill takes effect. NDAs used to silence similar reports could become unenforceable in many contexts.

This case should act as a prompt to review your confidentiality clauses and make sure they align with current and future whistleblowing protections. But more than that, you should work to building a workplace where employees feel able to raise issues early, and where managers respond constructively rather than defensively.

2025 Case Law: When “Flirty Banter” crosses the line

Most of us have worked in places where there’s been a bit of ‘banter’. But the line between friendly and inappropriate can be crossed more quickly than you’d think. That’s exactly what happened in Mr R Barr v EasyJet Airline Company Limited, where referring to colleagues as “lovely ladies” ultimately led to Mr Barr’s dismissal for gross misconduct.

This followed several complaints from both cabin crew and passengers about comments and behaviour that were described as inappropriate and sexually suggestive. Mr Barr labelled it “flirty banter”, but the impact on others, and the pattern of complaints, told a different story.

In August 2025, the Employment Tribunal upheld EasyJet’s decision, finding that dismissal was a reasonable response. Mr Barr had breached company policy and failed to meet the professional standards and values expected in his role.

Key takeaway

This case is a clear reminder that comments intended to be light-hearted can still amount to harassment, especially when they come from someone in a position of responsibility – leaders should always model respectful, professional behaviour to really set the tone for the rest of the workforce.

It also demonstrates how important it is for everyone in your organisation to understand and live your values and code of conduct. Take time to make sure your policies and training reflect the standards you need in place and consider leadership-specific training that helps managers and supervisors model the right behaviours every day.

2025 Case Law: TUPE Transfer dismissal

TUPE transfers can be confusing even at the best of times, so it critical to understand some of the key principles before any transfer takes place. That is why the case of London United Busways Ltd v (1) Mr. V. De Marchi (2) Abellio is one to have on your radar.

Mr De Marchi was a bus driver employed by London United Busways Ltd (the transferor). He objected to the TUPE transfer of his route to Abellio London Ltd (the transferee) because the new garage meant a much longer commute. He did not own a car, and working from the new depot would have been significantly more difficult. He argued this was a substantial and detrimental change to his working conditions.

Whilst Mr De Marchi formally objected to the transfer of his contract, he did not resign. London United Busways took the view that because he had objected, his employment had effectively come to an end and there was no need to treat this as a dismissal. Mr De Marchi disagreed and argued that he had, in fact, been dismissed due to a substantial change in his conditions.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with him. It found that the change was significant enough to amount to a dismissal by the original employer, rather than a voluntary resignation. This meant Mr De Marchi was entitled to compensation.

Key takeaway

The main lesson here is that where post-transfer changes are substantial, such as a major shift in commute or location, employees may have dismissal rights, not just an option to “walk away”. Employers should not assume that an objection to a TUPE transfer simply ends the employment relationship without further liability.

With the Employment Rights Bill’s proposed changes to unfair dismissal rights, the stakes may become even higher. With talks of the two-year qualifying period being reduced to six months and tribunal time limits being extended from three to six months, employees who object to TUPE changes could bring unfair dismissal claims more easily and over a longer period.

If you’re about to start a TUPE process, or are already in the middle of one, it’s imperative that you’re taking the time to consult with everyone affected so they understand what the change means for them. Any objections to the transfer should be clearly documented (in writing) and potential mitigations or alternatives explored to support informed decision-making.

Getting the right HR and legal advice before and during a TUPE process will help you navigate objections fairly and reduce the risk of claims later on.

2025 Case Law: The Supreme Court’s definition of “biological sex”

Another case that drew a lot of attention this year was For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, which examined whether the term “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex or whether it can also include gender identity.

The case began when For Women Scotland challenged statutory guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers, which defined a “woman” as including a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The organisation argued that this interpretation effectively redefined a protected characteristic in the Equality Act and went beyond the Scottish Parliament’s powers.

The Supreme Court agreed. It ruled that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex, not gender identity or a changed legal status under a GRC.

Key takeaway

The ruling matters because it clarifies who qualifies for single-sex staff areas, single-sex roles, and policies that rely on sex-based definitions. If you haven’t reviewed your policies on changing rooms and toilets, or any single-sex provisions for staff, now is a good time to do so to make sure the wording reflects the biological-sex definition.

While the Employment Rights Bill isn’t changing statutory definitions, it will increase scrutiny around policies and strengthen protections in areas like harassment and flexible working. That means organisations will be expected to evidence clear, up-to-date and well-reasoned gender-related policies.

Landmark employment law case to look out for

Similar to the Supreme Court case above, the Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr Upton is likely to attract a lot of attention in 2026. It centres on a nurse who raised concerns about sharing a women’s changing room with a transgender doctor. She brought claims of harassment and belief discrimination, and the ongoing case has become highly polarising.

The situation has raised questions on everything from safety to legal responsibility and a reminder of how complex workplace gender issues can be. As tribunals continue to test where that balance should sit, this case could have further influence on how employers approach gender-based facilities and belief-related concerns.

The Employment Rights Bill is likely to add extra weight to this issue. It strengthens protections against harassment, including from third parties, while also reinforcing support for diverse beliefs.

So, now might be the perfect time to review your policies on workplace facilities and belief-related behaviour. By focusing on clarity and consistency, you can make sure everyone feels respected and supported, whatever their beliefs or identity.

One final thought on 2025 case law

The upcoming Employment Rights Bill won’t necessarily rewrite existing case law, although it will bring much more attention to it. As a result, cases like Ayad and De Marchi are likely to carry even more weight in shaping what good people practice looks like. And this is where HR teams come in – playing a crucial role in keeping organisations compliant and ready for whatever comes next.

How we can help

We hope you’ve found this 2025 case law round-up useful and that it’s given you some food for thought. If you’d like tailored advice on any employee relations issue, we’re here to help. You can reach our team on 0330 223 5253 or drop us a line at office@fitzgeraldhr.co.uk.

Further reading

If you enjoyed this 2025 case law roundup, we think you’ll also find these articles useful:

• Navigating Employment Tribunals: A Handbook for Employers
• How to avoid unfair dismissal claims when employees “blow the whistle”
• Terminating an Employee with Mental Health Issues: A Guide
• Employment Rights Bill: all the key changes you need to be aware of.