Employment tribunal and court judgments | March 2026

The Claimant sought to appeal two Employment Tribunal decisions at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).  The first appeal was submitted electronically at 11:49pm on the final day of the limitation period to bring an appeal (after the EAT 4pm cut‑off) meaning it was treated as being lodged the next day. The second appeal was filed on time but failed to include the ET judgment, written reasons and pleadings, with these documents supplied two days late.

The EAT refused both appeals, applying a strict approach to time limits and documentation requirements. It held that submitting after 4pm on the last day of the limitation period meant the first appeal was out of time, and the second appeal was not “substantially compliant” with the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 because the required documents were not lodged with the appeal. The Claimant had not provided a good justification for the delay or failure to provide the correct documents on time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the EAT’s decision, confirming that only exceptional circumstances justify extending deadlines. Missing required documents is not treated as a minor error, and failure to provide the documents on time cannot ordinarily be cured by subsequently supplying materials.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal deadlines are strictly enforced: lodging appeals even minutes after the EAT’s 4pm cut‑off risks automatic rejection.
• Appeals must be complete: missing documents render the appeal invalid, even if later supplied.
• Exceptional circumstances only: extensions will be granted sparingly, typically only medical emergencies, external events outside of a party’s control (such as a system‑wide IT failure affecting the EAT itself, not the appellant’s own computer) or clear errors by the Tribunal/EAT. Administrative delays, workload or solicitor error will not justify a late or incomplete appeal.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, which confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) refers to biological sex, the Equality and Human Rights Commissions (EHRC) issued interim guidance on the provision of separate‑sex toilets in workplaces and public services. The interim guidance stated that, as a result of the For Women judgment, someone who identifies as transgender does not change sex for the purposes of the EA 2010. As such, the guidance stated that “[a] trans woman is a biological man” and “[a] trans man is a biological woman”, such that allowing trans women to use women’s facilities, or trans men to use men’s facilities, would mean those facilities were no longer single‑sex.

In this latest case, The Good Law Project and three affected individuals brought judicial review proceedings against the EHRC, arguing that their guidance on which public or workplace toilets and changing rooms transgender people should use misinterpreted the law and, even if accurate, was incompatible with Human Rights law.

The High Court held that the Good Law Project lacked standing because it was not personally affected by the EHRC Guidance, however, the claims by the three individual Claimants proceeded.

The High Court held that the EHRC’s interim guidance was lawful. It confirmed the following points:

• that sex under the EA 2010 means biological sex;
• health and safety regulations require either separate male and female rooms, or fully lockable single-user rooms usable by anyone;
• a lavatory remains single-sex only if used exclusively by biological members of that sex;
• the concern that employers or anyone else would need to “police” toilet use on a person-by-person or day-by-day basis was unrealistic; staff can be expected to follow policies in good faith.

Importantly, the High Court also emphasised that these requirements do not remove employers’ parallel obligations under the EA 2010, including the duty not to discriminate against employees with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans people must not be left without toilet provision, nor should they be forced to use toilets of their biological sex. Employers can, and in many cases should, provide additional or alternative facilities to ensure dignity and inclusion.

Although High Court decisions are not binding on employment tribunals, they are persuasive.  An appeal has been lodged but not yet listed.

• The interim guidance considered in this case has since been withdrawn, and the Court did not examine the draft EHRC Code of Practice, which remains with the Government subject to final approval and sign-off.
• A lavatory ceases to be single-sex if used by people other than in accordance with biological sex. Under health and safety regulations, either separate male and female rooms are required, or fully lockable single-user rooms usable by anyone;
• The High Court emphasised the importance of proportionality, nuance and flexibility. It stated that neither equality law, nor health and safety regulations, provide a comprehensive code on when or in what form lavatories and other facilities must be provided or who may or must use them. Discrimination outcomes are often fact-specific, risks are not always automatic, and employers must ensure they are acting proportionately.
• Organisations do not need to wait for updated EHRC guidance: the legal framework on separate‑sex facilities already exists, and the focus should now be on ensuring policies are both legally compliant and non‑
• Trans individuals should not be left without toilet provision; employers should consider creating additional single‑occupancy or universal facilities.
• Policies should be clear, respectful and consistently applied, with managers trained to handle queries sensitively. We provide specialist Gender Diversity and Managing Conflicting Beliefs training sessions – see: Employment Law Training for Managers | Foot Anstey .

If you’d like help reviewing your workplace facilities, training managers and employees, and/or drafting legally sound, inclusive policies, our team can support you. Contact Mollie Gascoigne for further details on how we can help you.

This case involved two customer‑facing employees working remotely who communicated with their team via a Microsoft Teams chat, which was set up to enable the remote workers to stay connected and raise work issues. During one exchange, a colleague sent a comment into the chat expressing frustration about a customer and used wording which, if taken literally, suggested violent intent. The two claimants replied supportively to their colleague’s venting.

When senior management became aware of the exchange, the two employees were dismissed for allegedly endorsing or encouraging violent behaviour. Both brought claims for unfair dismissal, arguing that the employer had taken the messages out of context and failed to conduct a fair and balanced investigation.

The Employment Tribunal upheld the claims, finding both dismissals unfair. While acknowledging that employers are entitled to take inappropriate or threatening language seriously, particularly where customers are involved, the Tribunal was critical of the employer’s approach. It found that the employer had:

• Relied solely on the literal wording of the messages, without exploring the purpose and tone of the chat.
• Not considered the informal nature of the group, which had routinely been used for emotional support and casual communication.
• Failed to assess whether the claimants’ messages were genuinely intended to incite violence or were simply expressions of collegial sympathy in an informal setting.
• Neglected to take into account mitigating factors, such as the context of remote working, workplace culture, and the absence of any indication that the claimants posed a real risk.

The Tribunal held that a reasonable employer would have widened the investigation, interviewed participants, considered tone and intent, and weighed alternative sanctions. The failure to do so meant the dismissals fell outside the band of reasonable responses.

• Context is essential: As hybrid working has made informal digital channels a key part of workplace culture, employers must ensure that disciplinary decisions are not based solely on isolated screenshots or literal interpretations of messages. Investigations into digital messages must consider purpose, tone and audience, not just the text.
• Don’t treat informal chats like formal records: Venting spaces may contain exaggerated or hyperbolic language that does not reflect actual intent.
• Update conduct policies: Ensure policies cover Teams, WhatsApp, and other informal channels.
• Train managers: Fair decision‑making requires understanding how digital communication differs from in‑person exchanges.
• Balanced investigations protect employers: Considering all relevant circumstances reduces the risk of unfair dismissal findings.

We offer a range of management development programmes to boost people management skills, reduce risk, increase engagement and motivation. Please contact Joanne Boyle, Legal Director, if you would like to discuss further how we can support your organisation.

Mr Cooper was a long‑serving Store Manager with over 30 years’ service. In July 2022, he went off sick with anxiety and remained absent for an extended period. During his absence, his line managr published an International Men’s Day (IMD) post on Sainsbury’s internal platform (Yammer) and on LinkedIn, celebrating male store managers in the region. All male managers were included except Mr Cooper.

Colleagues and external contacts contacted Mr Cooper after noticing his omission, which caused him distress, embarrassment and a sense of being excluded. He brought claims of disability discrimination, harassment, discrimination arising from disability, and unfair dismissal.

The ET rejected most allegations but upheld two key disability-related claims connected to the post:

1. Harassment related to disability (s.26 Equality Acy 2010)

The omission from the IMD post was unwanted conduct “related to” disability. Although the manager intended to avoid troubling Mr Cooper with notifications, the effect on him was that he felt humiliated, overlooked and questioned by colleagues, and this was reasonably foreseeable.

2. Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 Equality Act 2010)

The “something arising” from disability was Mr Cooper’s sickness absence. He was excluded from the IMD post because he was absent due to anxiety. This was unfavourable treatment linked to disability, and Sainsbury’s was unable to justify it.

His unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding that Sainsbury’s had acted reasonably in concluding that he was unable to return to work after approximately ten months of sickness absence. However, the Tribunal separately awarded Mr Cooper a total of around £12,000 (including interest) for injury to feelings and for the personal injury arising from the exacerbation of his pre‑existing anxiety, following its findings of disability‑related harassment and discrimination connected to the IMD post.

• Internal and external comms create legal risk: Recognition posts that omit absent employees (especially those absent for disability‑related reasons) can amount to harassment or unfavourable treatment, even where well‑
• Impact outweighs intent: The manager believed he was protecting the employee from unwanted notifications. The Tribunal accepted the intention was benign, but the impact was exclusionary and therefore unlawful.
• Be consistent with recognition: If including all team members, consider how to include those absent without causing intrusion e.g. agreeing wording in advance, or acknowledging absence sensitively.
• Disability awareness is essential: Managers should understand how everyday decisions (comms, social media, visibility) may interact with equality duties.
• Have a comms protocol: Establish internal rules for posts, tagging, photos and public celebrations to ensure no one is inadvertently singled out.
• Train managers: Many discrimination claims arise from decisions made informally and without HR input.

Please get in touch if you’re looking for practical, preventative support through tailored policy reviews, manager training and real‑time advice on sensitive employee issues.

Ms Hayes, an Irish bookkeeper and office manager employed by West Leeds Civils Ltd since October 2021, raised concerns about repeated derogatory comments from her employer, Mr Atkins. Over approximately six months from December 2023, he directed comments at her linked to her Irish heritage, including mocking her in a faux accent and using phrases she found offensive. Although she responded lightly at times, even sending a potato emoji twice, this was an attempt to manage the situation rather than genuine acceptance.

The behaviour intensified when a friend of Mr Atkins joined the business, and Ms Hayes described the treatment as “a death by 1,000 cuts.” In August 2024 she raised a grievance. Shortly afterwards, she began a period of sickness absence lasting four months. During that absence, the company accused her of fraudulently inflating her salary for a mortgage application and failing to disclose secondary employment. Ms Hayes denied these allegations.

The Employment Tribunal upheld her claims for harassment related to race and victimisation.

On harassment, the Employment Judge found that the repeated comments amounted to unwanted conduct related to Ms Hayes’ Irish heritage that violated her dignity and created a humiliating environment. The Tribunal held that her attempts to “make light of the situation” did not negate the seriousness of the behaviour or its discriminatory nature. It was reasonable, the Tribunal noted, for someone of Irish heritage to find the repeated comments offensive and demeaning.

On victimisation, the Tribunal held that the employer’s disciplinary action, including “completely baseless” fraud allegations, was instigated because she had complained. The leap from querying a potentially incorrect salary figure to alleging misconduct was described as “unexplained and irrational,” persuading the Tribunal that the process was retaliatory.

The Tribunal awarded £23,500 for harassment and victimisation.

• “Banter” is not a defence: Jokes or repeated comments linked to any protected characteristic creates significant risk of harassment claims, even where an employee appears to laugh along.
• Beware of victimisation: Any disciplinary process following a grievance is at risk of being scrutinised for retaliatory motive. Ensure such action is evidence‑based and proportionate, not keen jerk.
• Senior‑leader behaviour is organisational behaviour: Misconduct by owners or directors carries heightened liability for organisations.
• Robust grievance handling is essential: Independent investigation, neutrality and measured responses help prevent escalation into claims.