Our September 2026 edition provides a round-up of interesting case updates, including a Supreme Court decision that broadens protection for part-time workers against less favourable treatment. We also provide a summary of open consultations and where we are with the rollout of the Employment Rights Act 2025 reforms.
Case law update
Part-time discrimination: UK law protects part-time workers from being treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker. For the protection to apply, the worker must show that their treatment was “on the ground that” they are a part-time worker. Allowing an appeal and overturning earlier precedent on this issue, the Supreme Court has ruled that when assessing whether a part-time worker has been treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker, there is no need for their part-time status to be the sole reason for the differential treatment. In this case, a part-time private hire driver was charged the same fixed cost “circuit fee” as his full-time equivalents to access his employer’s booking dispatch system, but his claim for less favourable treatment failed in the lower courts, which were bound by precedent applying a “sole ground” test. Clarifying that the correct test is that part-time status be an effective cause of the differential treatment, the Supreme Court’s decision increases exposure for employers with a part-time workforce. (Augustine v. Data Cars Ltd)
Philosophical belief discrimination: The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a decision that an academic’s beliefs opposing political Zionism are a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010 and that he was directly discriminated against and unfairly and wrongfully dismissed because of comments made expressing those beliefs. However, while his employer’s appeal against a 50% reduction in compensation for contributory fault failed, the EAT allowed its appeal against the original employment tribunal (ET)’s finding that there was only a 30% chance that it would have fairly dismissed the claimant at a later date as a result of later social media posts he had made. Although the EAT recognised there was an element of conjuncture at what would have happened, it was critical of the ET’s lack of analysis for concluding there was a 30% chance of a fair dismissal in due course. This matter has been referred back to the original ET for redetermination. (University of Bristol v. Miller)
ET claims – vexatious litigants: In a long-running case, and following two appeals to the EAT, an ET has overturned its original decision on liability and ruled that the claimant (a notorious serial litigant) was not a genuine job applicant and therefore that his claim of disability discrimination could not succeed. The ET originally found in favour of the claimant but reversed its decision following a successful appeal by the employer to the EAT. In reversing its decision, the ET had regard to the fact that, since making its original decision, the Attorney General granted a permanent Restriction of Proceedings Order against the claimant on the basis he is a vexatious litigant who was “habitually and persistently, and without reasonable grounds, initiating litigation in the employment tribunal”. (Dr Christian Mallon v. AECOM)