Welcome to Worked Up – your one-stop shop for the latest updates in employment and immigration law.

Hear from Seth below who’ll fill you in on what’s in store in this month’s edition:

If you would like to discuss any of the below updates, please do get in touch. Alternatively, if you would like to receive these updates directly to your inbox, please subscribe here.

Supporting parents: understanding the new neonatal leave and pay rights

That’s gotta hurt: Injury to feelings award overturned due to lack of supporting evidence

A more temporary workforce? The impact of Kemi Badenoch’s settlement proposals on employers and migrants

Lively -v- Baldoni – What can UK employers learn from this latest sexual harassment saga?

If you want to stay ahead of the curve and keep updated on the key employment and immigration changes (including proposed legislation, consultations and case law) on the horizon over the next 24 months, check out our “What’s on the horizon” tracker.

Eddie Stobart Ltd v Miss Caitlin Graham: [2025] EAT 14

Facts: Miss Graham, a planner at Eddie Stobart, was made redundant whilst on maternity leave. She believed she had a legal right to be offered an available role of transport shift manager. However, the company disagreed that this was a suitable alternative role.

Her attempts to submit a grievance about the redundancy process were blocked by the company’s IT firewall and she was ultimately made redundant. While Miss Graham referred to her grievance during a separate discussion with HR about maternity pay, her grievance remained unaddressed.

Judgment: In first instance, the Tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim but ruled that the failure to handle her grievance properly amounted to an unlawful detriment and pregnancy discrimination. She was awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings, the lower end of the middle Vento band.

On appeal, the EAT reduced the award to £2,000, citing insufficient evidence of injury to feeling. While discrimination generally causes some emotional harm, the impact of the treatment to Miss Graham was “fleeting” with no lasting effects. The discrimination related to a one-off incident, was not overt, and lacked humiliation or ridicule. The EAT noted some additional stress due to Miss Graham having to chase up her grievance when she should be enjoying her maternity leave but ultimately ruled that the injury to feeling was minimal.

Takeaway: This case is a helpful one for employers, particularly when discrimination has been inadvertently caused by procedural failures rather than malicious intent. The onus is on the employee to provide clear evidence of injury to feeling in discrimination cases and it’s clearly not sufficient for employees to rely on the assumption that the discrimination alone caused injury to feelings without supporting this with evidence. The case is also a good reminder that employers should follow up if an employee refers to a grievance that has gone under the radar.

Back to top

The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 (Neonatal Act), which comes into force on 6 April 2025, introduces significant support measures for parents of infants requiring neonatal care. It grants eligible parents up to 12 weeks of additional leave and pay, supplementing existing entitlements such as maternity and paternity leave.

To qualify, newborns must be admitted to neonatal care within the first 28 days of birth and have spent at least 7 continuous days in such care. Neonatal care encompasses medical attention provided in hospitals, including maternity homes, clinics, and outpatient departments, as well as palliative or end-of-life care.

Neonatal Care Leave (NCL) extends to the child’s parents, intended parents (in cases of surrogacy), partners of the birthing parent, adopters or prospective adopters, and those with a significant personal relationship with the child. Importantly, the right to NCL is a “day one” entitlement, meaning it is available to all qualifying employees from the start of their employment, as long as they meet the required eligibility criteria.

Parents can take one week of NCL for each week their baby spends in neonatal care, up to a maximum of 12 weeks. NCL must be utilised within 68 weeks following the child’s birth, offering parents the flexibility to manage their time effectively during and after the neonatal care period. There are two types of leave:

• ‘Tier 1’ leave – this is while the child is receiving neonatal care or the week after neonatal care has ended. It can be taken with minimal notice, even verbally by the start of the workday. Typically it will be taken by the father, partner, or non-adopting parent.
• ‘Tier 2’ leave – this applies to leave taken after ‘tier 1’ and requires more notice: 15 days for one week or 28 days for longer. The leave must be consecutive. This ensures predictability, and is most likely to be used by individuals on maternity or adoption leave.

In addition to leave, the Neonatal Act introduces Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (SNCP). To qualify for SNCP, an employee must have a minimum of 26 weeks continuous service with their employer and meet the lower earnings limit set by the government from time to time. This pay is available for up to 12 weeks, aligning with the duration of NCL entitlement.

Employees taking NCL are afforded the same protections as those on other forms of family related leave. This includes protection from dismissal or any detriment due to taking or requesting NCL. Additionally, employees retain their terms and conditions of employment (excluding pay) during the leave period. After taking NCL, employees have the right to return to the same job or, if that isn’t reasonably practicable, to a suitable alternative position.

Employers should prepare for the implementation of this legislation by updating their policies and procedures to accommodate the new entitlements. In some cases this may include revising employment contracts and ensuring payroll systems can process SNCP, whilst some employers may wish to  communicate the new rights to their employees.

Back to top

In a recent policy proposal, the Conservative Party outlined significant changes to the United Kingdom’s immigration system. While very much hypothetical (given the party’s newfound limited presence in parliament), the proposals remain an interesting shape of the potential future direction of the UK immigration landscape.

One of the key proposals is to extend the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five to ten years. ILR grants migrants the right to live and work in the UK without time restrictions and serves as a pathway to British citizenship. Under the existing system, migrants can apply after five years of lawful residence. The proposed reform would double this period, requiring a decade of residence before eligibility.

In addition, the proposal includes stricter eligibility criteria, such as requiring migrants to demonstrate a net fiscal contribution—meaning they must contribute more to public finances than they receive in services or benefits. This measure would effectively exclude those who have accessed benefits or social housing from obtaining permanent residency. However, as most Skilled Workers are already ineligible for public benefits, this requirement is unlikely to have a major impact on that category of migrants.

Extending the ILR qualifying period is unlikely to drastically alter migration trends, as research suggests most migrants who leave the UK do so within the first five years. However, it would increase financial pressures on those remaining, requiring them to pay the Immigration Health Surcharge (currently £1,035 per year) for an additional five years. This extension would prolong their period of uncertain status and add to the overall cost of settlement.

For employers, particularly those reliant on Skilled Worker visa holders, these changes could bring additional challenges. Keeping migrant employees on temporary visas for longer means businesses would need to extend sponsorship arrangements, increasing administrative costs and compliance requirements. Additionally, the prolonged uncertainty surrounding settlement could make the UK less attractive to international talent, potentially driving skilled workers to countries with more straightforward residency pathways. Industries already struggling with labour shortages, such as healthcare and social care, may face further difficulties in recruitment and retention.

The proposals have sparked significant debate. Critics argue that extending the ILR period and imposing stricter economic criteria would disproportionately impact lower-income migrants and families, making integration more difficult and exacerbating social inequalities. There are concerns that these policies could create a long-term class of residents who contribute to society yet remain excluded from the security and rights that come with permanent residency and citizenship.

While these changes remain speculative, their potential impact highlights broader questions about the balance between economic contribution, integration, and access to settlement. If implemented, they would represent a fundamental shift in the UK’s immigration policy, reshaping pathways to residency and potentially altering the country’s appeal to skilled international workers.

Back to top

The Lively v Baldoni case has sparked important discussions around workplace culture, employer liability, and handling allegations of sexual harassment. In his latest article, Seth breaks down the key takeaways when examining the case from a UK law perspective. Read more here.

Back to top