Welcome to our round-up of people and workplace updates, hand-picked to help HR teams stay informed about legislative developments.

Catch up on:

If you have any questions on anything outlined below, get in contact with Paul Seath.

Constructive knowledge of disability: EAT clarifies the limits of an employer’s duty to enquire

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided a useful reminder of what amounts to reasonable enquiries when an employer is alerted to a potential disability.

What happened?

Mr Hussain, a firefighter with the London Fire Commissioner since 2004, raised concerns in 2017 that he might be dyslexic. Although initial screening suggested possible dyslexia, a later assessment indicated a low likelihood of the condition. The employer did not arrange a further assessment at that point, in line with its policy. It later revisited his case during a long period of sickness absence, and, in 2019, an educational psychologist’s report confirmed that he was dyslexic.

He brought several claims, including claims that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments and had treated him unfavourably because of something arising from his disability.

What did the Employment Tribunal decide?

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal found that the employer did not have actual or constructive knowledge of Mr Hussain’s dyslexia before October 2019. Although there were indications that Mr Hussain might have dyslexia, the information available to the employer was insufficient to show that the condition was likely to have a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities. It therefore concluded that the employer did not have actual or constructive knowledge of his disability.

On the discrimination arising from disability claim, Mr Hussain relied on anxiety and depression as disabilities. He argued that those conditions made him unwilling to provide a witness statement about a potential safety issue that he had raised with his managers, and that he was subsequently criticised by a senior firefighter for refusing to do so. The tribunal rejected the claim, finding that the treatment he received was not influenced by his mental health.

What did the EAT decide?

The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision on reasonable adjustments. The employer had investigated the possibility of dyslexia, but the assessment indicated a low probability of the condition. Given that Mr Hussain had worked for the employer for around 14 years without any previous indication that dyslexia was having a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities, the tribunal was entitled to find that the employer did not have knowledge of his disability.

The EAT found that the tribunal had erred on the discrimination arising from disability claim. It had focused on Mr Hussain’s mental health condition rather than his alleged refusal to provide a witness statement as a result of that condition. That part of the claim was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.

Why it matters

Hussain v London Fire Commissioner [2026] EAT 159 is a useful reminder that employers are expected to make reasonable enquiries where there are indications of a disability but are not required to investigate indefinitely. It also highlights the importance of understanding how a disability may affect workplace behaviour.

Practical takeaways for HR teams

  • Train managers to spot potential indicators of disability and know when concerns should be escalated for support or assessment.
  • Keep a clear audit trail of any disability enquiries, assessments and the reasons for deciding whether further investigation is required.
  • Build disability considerations into conduct and performance processes, rather than treating them as a separate issue.

Return to top.

Government publishes consultation on reforming employment status

The Government has published a consultation proposing to reshape the worker status test and reverse the burden of proof. If the plans came to fruition, they could bring significant numbers of self-employed contractors within worker protection.

What happened?

On 14 October 2026, the Government published a consultation on reforming employment status, alongside new protections for self-employed workers.

The consultation aims to address situations where individuals are classified as self-employed but, given the degree of control over how they work, a tribunal would find them to be workers and therefore entitled to rights such as the national minimum wage and paid holiday. The Government estimates 900,000 people fall within this category. The consultation does not affect how individuals are classified for tax purposes. It closes at 11:55pm on 8 January 2027.

What is the Government proposing?

The consultation has two main proposals. The most significant would be modifying the worker test to place less importance on the requirement for an individual to provide personal service. Currently a broad right to send a substitute in place of themselves, even one rarely or never used, can defeat worker status. It floats three options:

  • Changing the worker status test by replacing the current personal service requirement at stage two with a test based on either personal service or a significant degree of direction or control.
  • Revising how personal service is assessed so that certain limited substitution rights remain consistent with the personal service requirement.
  • Expressly providing that a substitution right cannot, on its own, outweigh every other factor.

The Government also proposes a presumption of worker status. The burden would flip, so the engager must show an individual is not a worker, mirroring the existing national minimum wage presumption.

What else is on the table?

The Government is also seeking views on a larger enforcement role for the Fair Work Agency and the introduction of an online employment status assessment tool. It also proposes that repeated worker misclassification could become a statutory aggravating factor, exposing employers to penalties of up to £20,000. In addition, genuinely self-employed individuals could gain rights including a written statement of key terms, protection from blacklisting and health and safety representation rights.

Why it matters

The proposals could significantly increase the number of individuals who qualify for worker status and make status decisions harder to defend. Employers that rely on contractors, freelancers or other self-employed engagements may need to review existing arrangements and prepare for a wider range of statutory rights applying to their workforce.

Practical takeaways for HR teams

  • Identify where your organisation relies on contractors, freelancers and gig workers, and assess which arrangements may be most exposed to reform.
  • Map the basis on which individuals are currently treated as self-employed, including any reliance on substitution rights.
  • Respond with your views before the deadline on 8 January 2027.

Return to top.

Fire and rehire: Government confirms the limits on changing contracts

The Government has published its response on restricted variations under the Employment Rights Act 2025, providing greater clarity on the scope of the new fire and rehire restrictions.

What happened?

The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces changes which restrict the use of fire and rehire practices. As part of those reforms, employers will be prohibited from imposing a restricted variation to an employment contract without the employee’s consent. Restricted variations will cover reductions in pay, changes to pension terms, changes to working hours, reductions in holiday entitlement, changes to the timing or duration of shifts and contractual clauses allowing employers to make such changes unilaterally.

On 22 October 2026, the Government published its response to the consultation on the changes. The consultation ran from 4 February 2026 to 1 April 2026 and considered whether certain expenses, benefits and shift pattern changes would count as a restricted variation. The response confirms which of those changes will fall within the regime.

Expenses and benefits

The Government has confirmed that three categories of expenses and benefits will count as restricted variations:

  • certain types of travel expenses, including mileage;
  • accommodation expenses;
  • accommodation provided as a benefit in kind.

Shift patterns

The Government has decided that restricted variations will be limited to changes between day and night working (and vice versa) and from weekday to weekend working (and vice versa). Night-time will be defined as 11pm to 6am, in line with the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Government acknowledged that this creates some hard-edged distinctions, with relatively small changes crossing those boundaries being caught while more significant changes to daytime working patterns are not but concluded that clear and easily applied rules were preferable.

Share schemes

The Government accepted consultation responses that the detail of share schemes is often too complex to be set out in contractual terms and is instead governed by separate arrangements. As a result, changes to share schemes will not be restricted variations.

When does it take effect?

The changes will be made by regulations, expected to come into force alongside the ERA 2025 fire and rehire provisions in March 2027.

Why it matters

The response fills in some of the remaining gaps on fire and rehire, giving employers greater certainty around the types of contractual changes that will and will not constitute restricted variations.

Practical takeaways for HR teams

  • Audit existing contracts for terms that may constitute restricted variations.
  • Allow more time for consultation and obtaining employee agreement when considering contractual changes.
  • Review variation clauses and change management processes ahead of March 2027.
  • Ensure managers can identify when a proposed change may amount to a restricted variation, so potential issues are flagged early.

Return to top.

The material in this article is provided for guidance and general information only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice on which you should rely. In particular, the information should not be used as a substitute for a full and proper consultation with a suitably qualified professional. Please contact the Bates Wells team if you require further information.