UK Employment Law Coffee Break: April employment law changes, anonymity in tribunal proceedings, and failure to prevent fraud

April employment law changes and new Vento bands published

April sees a number of changes that affect employers coming into force (see here and here for our earlier Coffee Breaks), including increases to the national minimum wage rates and other statutory payments, as well as the new statutory right to neonatal leave and pay.

New Presidential Guidance on Employment Tribunal awards for injury to feelings in line with the Vento bands has now also been published. For claims presented on or after 6 April 2025, the Vento bands are as follows:

• A lower band of £1,200 to £12,100 for less serious cases;
• A middle band of £12,100 to £36,400 for cases that do not merit an award in the upper band; and
• An upper band of £36,2400 to £60,700 for the most serious cases. The most exceptional cases are capable of exceeding £60,700.

Tribunals have a discretion to award compensation within the Vento bands in light of the specifics of the particular case. They compensate for the emotional distress and injury to feelings suffered by the claimant due to discrimination. This includes the psychological impact and any resulting harm to the claimant's mental well-being. The amount awarded is intended to reflect the severity and impact of the discriminatory behaviour on the individual.

EAT grants anonymity in tribunal proceedings where neurodivergence would harm career prospects

A recent decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has highlighted the stigma which neurodivergent employees may feel when applying for jobs and in the workplace.

The claimant suffered from an autism spectrum disorder (in particular, Aspergers Syndrome). He had concealed it from his family and previous employers, although he had made it known to the respondent employer.

He brought disability discrimination claims in the tribunal but was concerned that if knowledge of his disability became public it would have a serious adverse effect on his employability and, in addition, if he resumed his former employment as a teacher, "knowledge of his disability amongst pupils would result in considerable disorder". His concerns were based on personal experience, as well as academic research and other widely available material. He applied for an anonymity order in the tribunal – his supporting witness statement referred to published statistics regarding unemployment rates among autistic people and attitudes on hiring autistic staff and annexed academic reports in support.

Following a second appeal, the EAT granted his application.

For the purposes of the order the claimant only had to prove that he had a "reasonable foundation" for his belief and which the EAT considered to be a relatively low evidential threshold. The EAT commented that it "is inherently impossible to prove what will happen in the future" but that "the papers which were attached to [the claimant's] witness statement, in our judgment, plainly raise serious issues as to whether someone with autism who declares it will suffer adversely from such declaration. That is manifest from the Ameri et al paper… which demonstrated, by way of a live experiment, that relatively experienced professionally qualified people who made clear that they had autism on a job application had a much lower take up from prospective employees than relatively inexperienced applicants who did not make such a declaration". 

Here, granting the order would have a relatively minor interference with the principle of open justice. The order also extended to the identity of the respondent since the details of the claim would make it highly likely that the claimant would otherwise be identified. 

What does this mean for employers? 

It can often be the case that individuals looking to bring tribunal claims do not appreciate that their name will appear in tribunal judgments which are available (and searchable) online and that a decision may become more widely circulated via websites and social media where it raises points of legal or public interest or the identity of the employer is such that it is propelled into the spotlight. 

While tribunals generally operate under the principle of open justice (meaning that hearings are public and the identities of the parties involved are usually disclosed), anonymity orders may be granted to protect the identities of vulnerable individuals, such as whistleblowers, victims of sexual harassment, or those with sensitive health issues where a tribunal determines to do so would be in the interests of justice, having carried out the necessary balancing exercise looking at all competing factors, including the common law principle of open justice. As this case demonstrates, the fact specific and inevitably personal nature of such requests means that reaching a decision is not necessarily straightforward. We may now see more requests from claimants seeking anonymity where they believe that their neurodivergence would adversely affect their employment prospects. 

We are seeing increasing numbers of tribunal claims asserting discrimination related to an individual's neurodivergence; where a neurodivergent individual has suffered disability discrimination, an Employment Tribunal can make a compensation award reflecting an individual's financial losses, as well as any injury to feelings and personal injury suffered. There is no cap on the award that can be made and this is an area where we may see individuals claiming that accessing the job market is significantly more difficult for them than for others with financial losses reflecting a more extended period. 

More generally, this case also highlights the stigma which neurodivergent individuals may feel when applying for a job or in the workplace. The Buckland Review on autism in the workplace published its report last year. It highlighted the stigma which exists and sets out 19 recommendations aimed at changing employer behaviour. 

Acas has also published guidance for employers to enable them to understand better how they can support neurodivergent individuals. This month has seen the launch of its dedicated campaign to assist employers in understanding and supporting neurodivergent workers, including considerations around inclusive hiring practices accommodating different cognitive styles, providing reasonable adjustments and workplace awareness through educating employers and staff about neurodivergence to reduce stigma and increase understanding. 

The Department for Work and Pensions has also established an expert panel on neurodiversity and employment to examine employment outcomes for neurodivergent people. 

While many employers are now recognising, and looking to specifically support, neurodiversity within their recruitment and workplace practices, it is still a relatively new area for many employers and it is important that steps are taken to actively ensure that recruitment processes and employment practices accommodate and support those who are neurodivergent. With AI playing an increasing role in decision-making around candidates and employees, particular care must be taken to understand the impact that this may have on specific populations.

New corporate offence: failure to prevent fraud

The new failure to prevent fraud offence in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 will come into effect on 1 September 2025. The offence holds companies accountable for fraudulent activities carried out by associated persons for their benefit and understanding the implications and preparing for compliance is crucial.

To defend a claim under the Act, a commercial organisation must demonstrate that it had reasonable procedures in place to prevent fraud. The starting point for this will be for a business to conduct an objective and proportionate risk assessment to identify any fraud risks that it may face and take appropriate steps accordingly. The risk assessment should then be repeated at regular intervals, including where developments in the business may alter the overall risk profile of the organisation. You can read more in our latest Insight.

If you would like to understand more about the new legal obligations and how we can support you with compliance, please contact Jeremy Summers, partner in our commercial disputes team, or your usual Osborne Clarke contact who will be happy to assist.