header-logo header-logo

20 March 2026
Issue: 8154 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Family
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Right to grieve marks ‘major shift’ in employment law

244929
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners

Previously, protection was ‘conspicuously narrow’, leaving most employees reliant on employer goodwill.

The reforms aim to recognise grief as part of working life, though key details—such as pay and qualifying relationships—remain unresolved pending consultation.

Employers are urged to review policies now, as the outcome will ‘materially affect’ workplace practice. The shift signals a broader change: the law is beginning to treat grief not as an exception, but as a reality requiring structured support.

Issue: 8154 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Family
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll