The feedback above reflects Joe’s dedication to understanding clients’ needs, providing clear guidance, and ensuring matters are handled efficiently and thoroughly.

The post Feedback of the Week appeared first on PJH Law Solicitors LLP.

Whistleblowing and Constructive Dismissal

She Blew the Whistle – It Cost the Employer £149,017

In the case of Littlewood v Nuffield Health, claimant, a personal trainer, identified that a candidate’s blood pressure was too high to safely undertake a Ministry of Defence fitness test. Despite this, her manager allowed the test to proceed.

The claimant made a protected disclosure raising concerns about this decision.

Following this disclosure, she experienced a pattern of detrimental treatment, including:

• The withholding of three hours’ pay per week
• A false disciplinary allegation
• The imposition of a final written warning

Subsequently, while the claimant was representing Great Britain at the European Canoe Polo Championships in Germany, she was required to attend an urgent meeting. She travelled approximately 800 miles overnight to do so, but her manager failed to attend.

That was the last straw. She resigned.

The judge called the treatment “contemptuous and wholly unreasonable.” Nuffield Health got a £149,017 bill to prove it.

3 lessons for HR

1. Whistleblowing is not a problem to manage. It is a disclosure to investigate.
2. Managers who close ranks against a whistleblower are not protecting the business. They are building the claimant’s case.
3. If your managers ‘don’t like being challenged,’ that is a culture problem.

The post Littlewood v Nuffield Health – She Blew the Whistle – It Cost the Employer £149,017 appeared first on PJH Law Solicitors LLP.

At PJH Law, we are committed to providing clear advice, transparent communication, and a supportive client experience from start to finish.

A huge thank you to our client for their kind words, and special recognition to Renee, Philip, and the wider team for continuing to deliver exceptional service every day.

A great way to end a very hot week! Enjoy your weekend.

The post Feedback of the Week appeared first on PJH Law Solicitors LLP.

Endometriosis has finally been recognised by the Employment Appeal Tribunal as a disability in the case of Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd [2026].

What happened?

• Ms Pal, a manager at Accenture, was dismissed under its ‘up or elsewhere’ promotion system after being judged not ready for promotion.
• It was deemed that she was not progressing towards the next grade and the company therefore dismissed her.
• She claimed disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unfair dismissal linked to her endometriosis.
• On appeal, the EAT confirmed that endometriosis can qualify as a disability under the Equality Act 2010 where symptoms are substantial and long term.
• Fluctuating or cyclical symptoms do not prevent a condition from being a disability and the ET must consider the condition without the benefit of medical treatment when assessing disability.
• The EAT said dismissal for lack of promotion readiness is not an automatically fair reason for dismissal.

Employers must follow a fair and transparent process, including properly considering reasonable adjustments.

Why does this matter?

Endometriosis affects approximately 1.5 million women across the UK and is the second most common gynaecological condition.

Endometriosis qualifying as a disability under the Equality Act allows women with endometriosis further protection and understanding within the workplace.

What can HR do to prepare for this?

• Ensure that policies are up to date.
• Consider training on disability discrimination to increase understanding.

Need help?

Prevent potential claims by making sure employees receive the right training. The cheapest claim is no claim at all. Yoga HR can help! It provides courses that are engaging, stretching and relevant thereby helping organisations to grow, to become leaner, calmer and more mentally flexible. Courses employees want to sit. Get in touch today at enquiries@yogahr.co.uk or call 01780 918 128.

At PJH Law we specialise in Employment Law, feel free to call our office on 01780 757589 or visit our website to get in touch!

The post Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd – Endometriosis now recognised as a disability by the Employment Appeal Tribunal appeared first on PJH Law Solicitors LLP.

“Just because someone alleges discrimination doesn’t mean every workplace disagreement becomes unlawful treatment.”

That was the key message from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Robinson v Harris & Others [2026] EAT 71.

The case looked at an important point in discrimination law: how Equality Act protections apply to self-employed barristers, and whether the Tribunal had applied the wrong legal test.

What Happened?

Ms Robinson was a self-employed barrister and tenant at 10 King’s Bench Walk Chambers.

She raised concerns about:

• The handling of direct access instructions,
• Requests for repayment of a £360 brief fee for work she had declined,
• The conduct of clerks and members of chambers management.

She later brought claims of:

against chambers, two clerks and members of the management committee.

Her complaints included allegations that:

• She had been ‘badgered’ into accepting instructions,
• Clerks had acted aggressively when requesting repayment of fees,
• Her complaints were not taken seriously,
• Work was withheld after she raised concerns.

Why the Tribunal rejected the claims:

The Tribunal found no unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation. 

They concluded:

• The communications from chambers were professional and administrative in nature,
• Requests to return the £360 fee were standard practice,
• Other barristers would have been treated in the same way,
• There was no evidence that race played any part in the treatment complained of,
• There was no evidence work had been withheld because she had brought complaints.

The claims failed on the facts.

What Happened on Appeal?

Ms Robinson argued that:

• The Tribunal failed to properly apply section 47 Equality Act 2010, which protects self-employed barristers, and
• The Tribunal wrongly referred to section 39 EqA, which applies to employees.

The EAT rejected both arguments.

The Appeal Tribunal confirmed:

• Section 47 is simply the gateway giving self-employed barristers access to Equality Act protections,
• The Tribunal had fully understood her self-employed status,
• The case was decided by applying the correct legal tests for discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

The reference to section 39 was described as unnecessary, but not an error affecting the outcome.

The Takeaway

Simply being self-employed does not change the legal test for discrimination or harassment claims.

Tribunals will focus on:

• The actual evidence,
• Whether unlawful conduct occurred, and
• Whether there is a factual link to the protected characteristic.

Minor drafting errors in a judgment will not overturn a decision if the Tribunal’s reasoning, read as a whole, is sound.

Ask yourself:

If a discrimination complaint was made in your organisation today, could you clearly evidence that decisions and communications were consistent, professional, and unrelated to any protected characteristic?

The post Robinson v Harris & Others – Not every workplace disagreement amounts to discrimination. appeared first on PJH Law Solicitors LLP.

The post Feedback of the Week appeared first on PJH Law Solicitors LLP.