A Century of Change: Women, Workplace Reality and Corporate Responsibility

By Sasha Braham

As the Employment Rights Act 2025 is gradually implemented, this article considers the extent to which legal reform can reshape workplace reality, and what employers should do to foster inclusive work environments and mitigate legal and commercial risk.

Following Women's History Month, it is timely to examine women's experiences in the workplace and the extent to which the law protects them.

A century ago, the law changed. Workplace reality evolved more gradually.

In 1919 the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act formally opened the legal profession to women for the first time. On paper, women gained access to long standing institutional barriers. In reality, a stark gap remained between legal recognition and professional acceptance.

A year later, Madge Easton Anderson became the first woman to practise law in the UK, qualifying as a solicitor in Scotland. Although her perseverance saw her qualify in England in 1937, opportunities within traditional firms remained limited. Her work in, what is believed to be, the first all-female law firm alongside Edith Berthan and Beatrice Davy reflects how structural barriers shaped not only entry into the profession, but the limited quality of opportunities available to women.

Cornelia Sorabji, the first woman and women of colour to study law at Oxford, pioneered legal advocacy for women in India who were denied access to the courts. Yet her own career reflected the same constraints. Initially barred from sitting her law examinations alongside men, she eventually passed the Bachelor of Civil Laws in 1892 but was denied the degree because women were not permitted to graduate. It was only after the 1919 Act that she was formally awarded her degree in 1922, a delay of thirty years.

The presence of these women in legal careers was lawful, but acceptance was neither immediate nor guaranteed. Formal rights did not dismantle the structural and cultural barriers of professional life. Their experiences illustrate a broad pattern: legal reform can expand access, but its impact is ultimately determined by how institutions respond in practice.

A century later, this distinction continues to shape the modern workplace.

Cornelia Sorabji

The Modern Issue

Workplace inequality is still a contemporary issue shaped by organisational practice and legal regulation. In 2025, PwC reported that the UK had fallen to its lowest ranking in a decade for female workplace equality, reflecting ‘sluggish progress’ on gender pay disparities. In 2025, men in full-time employment earned more than women in full-time employment in all major occupation groups.  Amongst other G7 nations, the UK is now the second-worst performer. This statistic is measured on indicators of female labour force participation, participation rate, wage gap, female unemployment rate and full-time employment rate. In contrast, countries like  Iceland, Luxembourg and New Zealand have benefitted from stronger parental leave, enabling women to more easily maintain a career during motherhood.

For businesses, non compliance with the Equality Act 2010 increases the risk of tribunal claims, regulatory scrutiny, reputational risk and financial penalties. Poor workplace culture can drive talent loss, inflate recruitment costs and weaken productivity.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 represents a significant attempt to strengthen workplace protections. Yet, a central question remains:

How far can legislation alone reshape entrenched workplace practices and what must employers do to mitigate associated legal and commercial risks?

Common Workplace Risks Affecting Women

For employers, protecting and empowering women at work begins with identifying the risks embedded in workplace structures and culture. Such risks can include:

• Bullying and Harassment: Deloitte’s Women at Work - A Global Outlook 2025 reported that a third of women are very or extremely concerned about their personal safety when at work. The emotional impact of workplace harassment can lead to heightened stress, anxiety and even symptoms of depression, making it harder to for someone to stay engaged and progress in their career. The fear of speaking up can also create a toxic cycle where issues remain unaddressed.

  
  

• Menstruation: In 2023, Spain became the first European country to introduce paid menstrual leave. However, reportedly, uptake has been limited. This reflects a culture of workplace stigma that the legislation could not address. Reported concerns about being ridiculed or appearing incompetent deter employees from seeking support or using their statutory leave.

  Under UK law, employees experiencing severe period symptoms must typically rely on general sick leave. This raises questions about whether existing frameworks adequately support workforce participation and retention, and the cultural change that needs to be addressed in the workplace to ensure that employees feel able to seek support without stigma.

  
  

• Menopause: Women can face disciplinary action or a lack of support as a result of triggering sickness absence policies. There are a number of problems that women experience in the workplace during menopause including hot flushes, depression, irregular periods, lower self-confidence, anxiety, memory issues, sleep problems      and joint and muscle pain. In 2025 The British Menopause Society reported that out of 1,000 women, 47% of women who needed to take a day off due to menopausal symptoms, felt that they could not tell their employer the real reason for their leave.

  
  

• Maternity Leave and Caregiving Responsibilities: Businesses can mishandle requests for flexible working. Taking maternity leave or balancing caregiving responsibilities should not force women to put their career on hold, but some women face pay cuts, inappropriate comments, stalled promotions or unfair assumptions about their commitment to work.

These issues are often exacerbated for women of colour. In 2026, People Management reported that one in five women of colour experienced discrimination at work, more than double the rate reported by white women and men.

Microaggressions and systemic inequalities can create sustained psychological and professional pressures. Subtle but persistent invalidation, stereotyping and exclusion may lead to imposter syndrome, burnout and diminished confidence. Without appropriate support, these effects can impact retention, progression and overall organisational performance.

 

So what did the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduce?

The Employment Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent in 2025 but its provisions are being phased out gradually. Major changes are scheduled for April 2026 and January 2027. Relevant changes include:

• Stronger pregnancy and maternity protections: New protections against dismissal during pregnancy, maternity leave  and for six months after return, including priority for suitable alternative roles in redundancy scenarios. From 6 April 2026, statutory paternity leave is a 'day-one' right. This allows employees to take paternity and unpaid parental leave immediately upon starting a new job.

  Strengthening the existing ‘day-one’ right to request flexible working, by introducing a clearer process for employers to follow when a request cannot be agreed, requiring employers to explain their rationale for denying a request and adding the requirement that a rejection of a request be reasonable.

  
  

• Gender pay gap and menopause action plans: Large employers (250+ employees) are required to develop, publish, and implement Menopause Action Plans to support staff, with mandatory compliance starting in spring 2027.

  
  

• Employment liability for third party harassment: Employers are required to take 'all reasonable steps' (an enhanced duty) to prevent sexual harassment from third parties  such as customers or clients.

Why This Matters to Employers

• Litigation Risk: Expanded statutory duties widen the scope for employment tribunal claims. Discrimination and harassment disputes are costly, management-intensive and reputationally damaging.

  
  

• Regulatory Scrutiny: Mandatory reporting and action plans shift equality into the realm of corporate governance and disclosure obligations.

  
  

• Operational Disruption: Workplace policies that fail to accommodate diverse needs, like flexible working, caregiving and health, can destabilise workforce continuity, reduce productivity and create avoidable friction within teams.

  
  

• Reputational and ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) Pressure:

  Workplace gender disparities are now a key ESG metric, shaping investor decision-making and corporate valuations. Failures in equality, whether through pay gaps, discrimination claims or lack of representation, may be interpreted as governance weaknesses, reducing investor confidence and exposing organisations to reputational and financial risk. This can rapidly escalate into public crises including negative press commentary which can lead to brand erosion.

  
  

• Talent Retention and Competitive Advantage: Inclusive employers attract and retain skilled professionals. High turnover erodes institutional knowledge, increases recruitment expenditure and weakens overall productivity.

 

Operational Risk in Practice

Marston (Holdings) Ltd v A Perkins [2025] EAT 20 showed that employers must ensure that any job requirements like travel or flexibility are objectively justified and do not disproportionately disadvantage certain groups, particularly those with protected characteristics  like sex.

Perkins was employed by Marston Company restructuring meant that her workload did not decrease and she was required to travel significant distances. As primary caregiver for two children, there was several instances where she was unable to commute in person so she attended remotely via video call. Subsequently Marston amended the job description for Perkins’ role to introduce a requirement to “travel as and when required”. When Perkins subsequently refused to comply with the requirement to travel and attend in-person meetings, she was dismissed on grounds of redundancy. Consequently, Perkins brought claims for indirect sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.

While the Employment Tribunal initially found in favour of Perkins, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that there was no group disadvantage clearly established for there to be indirect sex discrimination. While women are more likely to be primary carers, Perkins failed to evidence that the particular workplace practice disadvantages women. Therefore, there was no group identified as disadvantaged in the indirect discrimination claim.

This underscores the need for businesses to ensure that they mitigate legal risk by conducting and documenting impact assessments, and engaging with staff when changing roles or structures. Routine operational decisions including role design, travel requirements and flexibility expectations can generate legal exposure where equality impacts are not properly assessed.

So what can employers do to create inclusive workplace cultures? 

• Inclusive Leadership: Inclusion must be driven from the top. Senior leadership should integrate equality into governance frameworks, performance metrics and decision-making processes, ensuring that responsibility is clearly owned rather than delegated. Employers can use data to gain insight into the needs and experiences of different employees across their work lifecycle, this can include regularly asking for anonymous feedback.

  
  

• Mentoring and Sponsorship: Affinity groups can create a positive work atmosphere, foster friendships and create a sense of community. Employees who feel seen and valued are more likely to be productive at work and experience improved wellbeing.

  
  

• Supportive Workplace Culture: Employers must create environments in which concerns can be raised without fear of retaliation, supported by consistent enforcement, training and visible leadership commitment. Employers can also ensure policies support work-life balance and a commitment to flexible working. By profiling senior leadership's commitment to flexible working, employers can address the risk of stigma from the top down.

  
  

• Reasonable adjustments: Employers should offer reasonable adjustments for those who need help completing their work comfortably. These can include flexible working, whether that be changing work patterns or working from home, counselling, an option to take more regular breaks and more time to prepare before appointments, meetings or presentations. For those on maternity leave, employers should inform employees of any opportunities or vacancies to avoid potential claims of discrimination.

  
  

• Targeted Initiatives: Measures like blind screen applications can help to avoid unconscious bias from recruiters. Employers should avoid single gendered recruitment panels and upskill interviewers on unconscious bias.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 signals serious regulatory intent. But legislation alone cannot reshape workplace reality.

Organisations that treat equality as peripheral face litigation exposure, reputational harm and talent loss. Those that embed inclusive practice strengthen resilience, governance credibility, stimulate innovation and long-term performance.

The law can set the standard, but it is organisations that determine whether it is realised in practice.