Welcome to Employment Today,

Here's our latest Employment newsletter, we hope you will find it useful. If you have any feedback, please send it through by replying to this email.

The Employment Rights Bill: a new era for football manager dismissals

Football management has been synonymous with instability. Dismissals are often abrupt and procedurally thin. While managers with more than two years’ service technically have unfair dismissal protection, the practical value of that right has been limited. High‑earning managers rarely litigate because the statutory compensation cap makes doing so commercially pointless. Cases like Antonio Conte v Chelsea Football Club Ltd remain the exception.

But the legal landscape is set to change - and significantly.

A new threshold: six‑month unfair dismissal rights (from January 2027)

The Employment Rights Bill - now passed and becoming the Employment Rights Act 2025 - introduces one of the most significant reforms to unfair dismissal law in recent memory. Following Parliamentary compromise, the Government confirmed that from 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal protection will fall from two years to just six months.

This is a seismic shift for the sports world. The vast majority of football managers do not last two years - but they do make it past six months. Under the new regime, managers and coaching staff could secure unfair dismissal rights far earlier in their tenure. Clubs will lose the lengthy “risk‑free” window in which they can dismiss without repercussion.

Managers are typically employed on fixed‑term contracts, a structure designed to offer certainty over tenure and financial commitment. However, in this new environment, those contracts may need to be drafted more carefully. Clear, robust performance‑based termination provisions will be essential to justify dismissals and mitigate the risk of early‑termination claims.

The compensation cap is gone - and that changes everything

Under the current regime, unfair dismissal awards are capped at the lower of £118,223 or 52-weeks’ gross pay. For managers earning seven‑figure salaries, that level of damages provides little incentive to pursue a claim.

From 2027, that cap will be abolished. Unfair dismissal compensation will become uncapped, aligning with discrimination claims.

The practical consequence is significant. A manager dismissed unfairly after just six months could recover losses aligned with their real financial position - not a statutory limit. Multi‑million‑pound awards become conceivable.

What this means for clubs

These reforms will fundamentally change how clubs manage under‑performing managers:

Conclusion: a more considered approach to managerial change

The Employment Rights Bill will undoubtedly reshape how clubs approach the manager merry-go-round.

Impulsive dismissals will carry real financial consequences. Clubs will need to adopt more disciplined processes and think carefully before making knee‑jerk decisions. Managers who survive beyond six months may enjoy unprecedented leverage.

For clubs, this is a moment to reassess governance, decision‑making frameworks and contractual strategy. For managers, it marks the beginning of a more balanced playing field.

Poor practice is not sufficient: drawing inference and the burden of proof in discrimination claims

It is a familiar outcome that discrimination is rarely admitted and is often proved by inference. In London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sodola (debarred) [2026] EAT 6, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has provided a helpful reminder that unreasonable or poor treatment does not automatically justify an inference of direct discrimination. Tribunals must identify a coherent evidential route from the primary facts to a conclusion that the protected characteristic caused the treatment complained of. 

Background

The claimant, a Black African employee, applied for a Team Manager post. He was unsuccessful after interview and was given brief verbal feedback. He requested written feedback, which was not provided until around three months after the interview. He pursued two direct race discrimination complaints in respect of: (1) the failure to appoint him; and (2) the delay in providing written feedback.

The Employment Tribunal rejected the promotion complaint, accepting that the claimant was not appointed because he scored less than the successful candidates. However, it upheld the feedback‑delay complaint, reasoning, broadly, that the delay and related shortcomings were sufficient to shift the burden of proof and that the employer had not provided cogent reasons showing the delay was unrelated to race.

The EAT allowed the appeal and set aside the finding of discrimination relating to the feedback delay, substituting the conclusion that the burden did not shift because the primary facts could not reasonably support an inference that the delay was because of race. 

Legal takeaways

1. "Something more" is required at Stage 1

Under s.136 Equality Act 2010, a claimant must first establish facts from which the tribunal could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that discrimination occurred. Only then does the burden move to the employer to show that it did not discriminate.

The EAT stressed that stage 1 is not satisfied by simply showing: (a) poor treatment; and (b) a difference in race. The tribunal must be able to identify facts that logically support the inference that race materially influenced the treatment. Here, the findings that the delay was “poor”, the feedback was minimal, the response was unhelpful and procedures were not followed were, in substance, descriptions of the treatment complained of - they did not provide the necessary link to race. 

2. Keep alleged discriminatory act in its own lane

A key feature of this case was that the ET had found the promotion decision itself was not discriminatory. The EAT considered it illogical, on the facts found, to then treat the administrative delay in feedback about that non‑discriminatory decision as being race‑motivated without a clear evidential basis. Put another way: tribunals, and parties, should not treat surrounding dissatisfaction or process failings as a substitute for evidence that the specific act complained of was because of race. 

3. Do not conflate direct discrimination and victimisation

The EAT noted that some factors relied on by the ET, including the claimant’s broader concerns about diversity and progression and the employer allegedly “shying away” from engagement, might have been relevant to a victimisation allegation detriment because the claimant complained of discrimination, but that was not the pleaded claim. Those matters did not logically establish that the reason for the feedback delay was the claimant’s race.

4. Efobi and "explanations" at stage 1: a practical clarification

The appeal also addressed how tribunals should treat “explanations” at stage 1, in the light of Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33. The EAT reminded tribunals that the first stage of the Equality Act burden of proof test is not about deciding whether the employer’s innocent explanation is true or persuasive. At stage 1 the question is simply: looking at the facts of what happened, and assuming, for the moment, there is no innocent explanation, is there enough to justify an inference of discrimination? The EAT also indicated that this does not mean every “reason‑related” fact must be ignored since objective features of what the employer did or said, for example, giving inconsistent accounts or an account that is plainly wrong, can sometimes be part of the factual picture from which an inference might be drawn, but the employer’s full “this was for an innocent reason” defence is primarily a stage 2 issue.

Practical takeaways for Employers

Whilst the Trust ultimately succeeded, the case is a useful reminder that process weaknesses can still generate disputes and may undermine credibility in other litigation. We recommend the following steps:

The EAT's decision is a reminder that tribunals must not treat poor practice as a proxy for discriminatory motivation. Employers should still aim for robust process but where challenged the focus will be on whether there is a rational evidential basis to infer that the protected characteristic caused the specific treatment complained of. 

Court of Appeal confirms strict approach to employment appeal tribunal deadlines

The Court of Appeal (CoA) recently handed down judgment in Mulumba v Partners Group Limited & Anor, confirming that appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) must comply with strict deadlines.

Background

Ms Mulumba (Claimant) pursued a wide range of claims in the Employment Tribunal, including discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and unfair dismissal.

During the initial proceedings, the Claimant sought to appeal two Employment Tribunal decisions:

The EAT refused to extend time for either appeal. The Claimant therefore appealed against these decisions to the CoA.

Court of Appeal

The CoA dismissed the appeals on the following basis:

Interestingly, the CoA confirmed that it is possible in principle for an appellant to overcome late submission, in the event they provide a 'good explanation' for their failure to lodge the appeal and/or relevant supporting documents in time. However, in this case, the fact that the documents were successfully submitted within a few days of the deadline undermined the Claimant's assertion that it was impossible to comply with the time limit.

The CoA also clarified that confusion and complexity are not relevant factors for the EAT to consider when assessing compliance with deadlines.

Key takeaways for employers

This decision offers certainty for employers, as the EAT will continue to enforce deadlines strictly. Appeals that are submitted late will only be allowed to proceed in exceptional circumstances.

Employers can take comfort that litigants in person, who often find the Tribunal system confusing and complex, will not be permitted to reopen matters once the EAT appeal window has closed. 

To discuss any of the matters raised in this article in further detail, please contact a member of Michelmores Employment Team.

Q: We've suspended an employee pending a disciplinary investigation and they refuse to engage or turn up to investigation meetings. What should we do?

A: The investigator should explore the reasons behind the lack of engagement – is there a legitimate reason or are they being uncooperative? The employer will need to consider if it can continue with the investigation without the employee’s input. It may be appropriate to invite the employee to produce a witness statement instead of attending an investigation meeting. All attempts to engage with the employee should be documented so there is a proper paper trail. Ultimately, the employer may decide to simply proceed, but the investigation should be particularly thorough.