The Employment Rights Bill – time limit for claims

Currently, the time limit for starting most employment tribunal claims by making a notification to ACAS is three months. Labour promised to extend this to six months, but the reform was not included in the first draft of the Employment Rights Bill. It has now been added by amendment.

Labour view the change as having two benefits. The first is that employees find three months is not long enough to bring a claim – particularly where the claim is related to maternity or ill health, and they have other pressures on their time. They also believe that the change will give more time for internal procedures to be completed, and disputes settled, ultimately reducing pressures on the Tribunal system.

It is not clear in practice how the change will encourage settlement, particularly given the other expansions to rights that the bill proposes. In our experience, whilst sometimes employees do file claims due to time limits, where settlement is possible, those claims usually already settle quickly.

We think it is far more likely that this change will lead to increased claims. With the tribunal system already heavily overloaded, this is likely to lead to increased backlogs in listing. One advantage to the change may be if tribunals become stricter on filing out of time. We have seen a trend towards them permitting extension applications more easily, and a six-month time limit may hopefully see a return to greater certainty if the claim is still filed late.

Further guidance on the proposed amendments can be found here.

Case law updates – claims under the Equality Act 2010

Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109

Higgs v Farmor’s School, a case we have previously written about, has now reached the Court of Appeal. Here, Mrs Higgs’ appeal was upheld, as it found that her dismissal was a disproportionate sanction in the circumstances and was directly discriminatory on the ground of her beliefs. Mrs Higgs, a Christian, holds gender-critical beliefs, including a lack of belief in gender fluidity, and a belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Farmor’s School (“the school”), where she worked as a pastoral assistant, received a complaint from a parent about content Mrs Higgs posted to her private Facebook account which contained criticism of school education on same-sex relationships and gender fluidity.

The school responded with a full investigation and disciplinary hearing, culminating in the summary dismissal of Mrs Higgs for gross misconduct. Mrs Higgs filed a claim for direct discrimination on the ground of her beliefs, but this claim was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal at the first hearing. Mrs Higgs then appealed successfully to the EAT, and the final appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal was not a justifiable response to the posts, and that dismissing an employee because they express a belief to which the employer objects – either personally or out of concern for its reputation with a third party – will constitute unlawful direct discrimination, provided the employee’s belief is not expressed in an objectionable manner.

Key insights for employers

1. Take into account the manner, method and context of an employee’s expression of their belief – consider the language used, the likely audience, and whether the platform is linked or their views are purported to be representing the views of their employer.
2. Take proportionate action – ensure you fully investigate the incident, take an objective view of the situation and any likely impact on the employer, and opt for the least intrusive response. Only consider severe sanctions, such as dismissal, if there is clear evidence of harm.

Islam-Wright v Arts Council England and C Ashcroft

In Islam-Wright v Arts Council England and C Ashcroft, the Employment Tribunal has upheld Mrs Islam-Wright’s constructive unfair dismissal claim against Arts Council England (“ACE”), but dismissed her victimisation claims against both respondents.

Mrs Islam-Wright had discovered, whilst employed by ACE as a Diversity Relationship Manager, that they had allocated a sizable grant to a charity which was viewed by some as “transphobic”. Employees of ACE formed a group to raise a grievance in relation to this grant and requested training for ACE on gender fluidity.

Mrs Islam-Wright put her name down on a spreadsheet to join this group and added comments which Mr Ashcroft stated to “equate gender critical beliefs to racism and colleagues with these opinions being the same as racists”. This comment was categorised as warranting further action by virtue of its seriousness, as Mr Ashcroft believed they constituted a potential breach of ACE’s Dignity at Work policy.

ACE invited Mrs Islam-Wright to a formal disciplinary investigation meeting without any prior communications with her, or with her line manager. Throughout the disciplinary process, Mrs Islam-Wright raised several key concerns about the conduct of the process, even raising a formal grievance, culminating in her handing in her resignation, stating her position had become untenable.

The tribunal held that Mrs Islam-Wright had been unfairly dismissed. It observed that ACE did not follow its own internal process, and if it had, it could likely have resolved this issue with an informal conversation, rather than commencing the formal disciplinary proceedings.

Key insights for employers

1. Follow your own internal processes and procedures, and document the steps taken to ensure that no steps are inadvertently missed. The more informal initial steps in a disciplinary process are included for a reason, and you may find that the situation is resolved without the need for a more formal procedure.
2. Consider the potential impact on the relationship between employee and employer prior to taking any action, and question whether there are any steps which may be taken to resolve the issue without causing undue stress to the employee, a breakdown in the relationship, or both.