A change to whistleblowing law lands on 6 April 2026. From that date, sexual harassment complaints and reports will be treated as qualifying disclosures under whistleblowing legislation. For HR managers, this isn’t a technical footnote — it reshapes how you handle harassment complaints, how you document them, and the legal exposure your organisation faces if things go wrong.
Here is what you need to understand, and what you need to do about it.
What Is Actually Changing
Under current law, whistleblowing protection applies to workers who make a “qualifying disclosure” — broadly, a disclosure of information that the worker reasonably believes shows wrongdoing of a specified kind, such as a breach of a legal obligation or a danger to health and safety. Sexual harassment complaints have not, until now, automatically fallen within that framework, though many such complaints have in practice already qualified as protected disclosures when framed as a breach of legal obligation.
From 6 April 2026, that changes. Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 amends section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to add sexual harassment as an explicit, standalone qualifying category. A worker who reports or complains about sexual harassment — that it has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur — will be treated as having made a qualifying disclosure. This is significant not because it removes any uncertainty. Workers no longer need to identify a separate legal hook — a breach of legal obligation, a health and safety risk — to bring their disclosure within the statutory framework. The category now exists in its own right.
Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 2025
“(1) Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosures) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 43B (disclosures qualifying for protection), in subsection (1), after paragraph (d) insert— “(da) that sexual harassment has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,”
(3) In section 43L(1) (other interpretative provisions), after the definition of “the relevant failure” insert— “sexual harassment” means harassment of the kind described in section 26(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (unwanted conduct of a sexual nature).”
The Tests Still Apply
It would be a mistake to read the April change as granting automatic protection to anyone who raises a sexual harassment concern. Workers still need to satisfy the usual requirements for a protected disclosure — and HR and legal teams need to understand those requirements, because they will shape how complaints are assessed and how claims are argued.
The public interest test. The worker must reasonably believe their disclosure is being made in the public interest. This is not a high bar — tribunals have consistently interpreted it broadly, and a concern about sexual harassment in a workplace will generally satisfy it. But it is not automatic. A purely personal grievance framed in sexual harassment terms, without any public interest element, may not qualify. In most genuine cases this threshold will be cleared without difficulty, but the requirement remains.
Reasonable belief. The worker must reasonably believe that the information disclosed tends to show that sexual harassment has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur. They do not need to be right — a mistaken but genuinely held reasonable belief is enough. What they cannot do is make a disclosure they know to be false.
Who the disclosure is made to. This is the aspect of the law that receives least attention in most employer guidance, and it matters considerably. Not all disclosures are protected regardless of content. The route matters. The rules regarding to whom a disclosure must be made are not changed. Disclosures to an employer, or to a prescribed person such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, are protected on the standard public interest and reasonable belief grounds.
Whistleblowing or Victimisation — Why the Distinction Still Matters
Many HR managers will be familiar with victimisation claims under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. Victimisation occurs where a worker suffers a detriment because they have done a “protected act” — which includes making a complaint about, bringing proceedings in relation to, or doing anything else for the purposes of or in connection with the Equality Act.
The April change creates a parallel statutory route that in some situations provides potentially stronger or clearer protection. The most important example is the position of bystanders. A witness who reports having seen sexual harassment — rather than having experienced it personally — may find the Equality Act route less certain, depending on how their involvement is characterised. From April 2026, reporting that they witnessed sexual harassment is a qualifying disclosure under ERA 1996 in its own right, without needing to be framed in Equality Act terms at all.
There is also a meaningful remedies difference. A whistleblowing dismissal claim carries the right to apply for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996 — an application that must be made within seven days of termination, and which, if successful, can compel continuation of employment and pay pending a full hearing. That remedy is not available for a straightforward victimisation claim.
The inevitable publicity around the April 2026 changes will also increase employee awareness. The victimisation route has, in practice, been less well understood. An explicit whistleblowing category for sexual harassment is a more visible legal signpost, and employers should expect more claims to be framed this way.
Why This Matters Beyond the Obvious Cases
The April change doesn’t only protect employees who personally experience harassment. A worker making a whistleblowing claim doesn’t need to show they were the subject of the harassment — only that they made a protected disclosure about it. A manager who escalates a concern about how an investigation is being conducted, or an HR professional who raises a flag internally about organisational responses to complaints, could in certain circumstances now be making a protected disclosure.
This potentially changes the incentive structure around reporting, and with it the organisation’s exposure. Workers have new and more visible legal protection to come forward.
The Documentation Imperative
If there is one operational shift HR teams need to make before April, it is this: every sexual harassment complaint or report needs to be treated, from the moment it is received, as a potential protected disclosure.
That means recording when the complaint was made and by whom. It means documenting every decision made in response to it, and any the reasoning behind those decisions. It means ensuring that any subsequent employment decisions affecting the complainant — performance management, restructuring, role changes, anything — are made on defensible, documented grounds that are clearly independent of the complaint.
This is not a counsel of paranoia. It is straightforward risk management in a changed legal environment. The absence of documentation is consistently one of the factors that turns a manageable employment dispute into a riskier situation and costly tribunal claim.
What Your Whistleblowing Policy Needs to Say
Most existing whistleblowing policies will not reference sexual harassment complaints as a category of protected disclosure. They need to be updated before 6 April to reflect the new position.
Beyond the policy itself, your reporting channels need to be fit for purpose. Workers need to know they can raise sexual harassment concerns through your whistleblowing process as well as through any separate harassment reporting route. For some workers, the whistleblowing channel — particularly if it offers confidentiality — will feel safer than a formal grievance. Making that option clearly visible is both good practice and a step towards demonstrating compliance with the broader prevention duty. But it also creates additional complications regarding the way to investigate sexual harassment allegations.
There is also a communication point here. The public interest and reasonable belief requirements still apply. Workers who understand the framework are better positioned to make disclosures that attract protection — and employers who communicate clearly about reporting routes are less likely to find that a disclosure arrives via a route that complicates the legal picture.
Looking Ahead to October 2026
October 2026 brings further developments in the same area. The duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment is strengthened, and employer liability for third-party harassment is reintroduced. On a date not yet confirmed by government, the rules on NDAs will also change: contractual provisions that seek to prevent a worker from disclosing relevant harassment or discrimination will be void, subject to the conditions of an “Excepted Agreement.” The precise conditions necessary to qualify as an Excepted Agreement are still awaited, but settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions in harassment cases will need careful drafting to remain enforceable. The reputational risks around misuse of NDAs in this context are real and growing.
The Three Things to Do Before April
The immediate priorities are straightforward:
- update your whistleblowing policy to capture sexual harassment complaints as a standalone category of qualifying disclosure;
- review your documentation and recording processes for harassment complaints; and
- train the managers and HR professionals who handle these complaints on the changed legal position — including the specific risks that arise where anyone who has raised a concern is subsequently treated unfavourably.
