New workplace harassment legislation brings important protections for employees. But what happens when doing the right thing isn’t as straightforward as it sounds?
In brief: Since 30 October 2026, employers in Great Britain must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. They can also be held liable when customers and other third parties harass their staff. For a small business the answer is rarely to remove the employee from the situation. It is to reduce the risk itself, involve the employee, and record the decisions you make.
Imagine you run a small convenience store. You sell groceries, alcohol and cigarettes, and you stay open late to serve your local community.
Like many small businesses, margins are tight. Having two employees on duty throughout the evening simply isn’t financially viable.
One of your employees is a woman in her late twenties who is studying at university. She actively wants the late shifts because they fit around her studies and provide income she relies on.
There’s just one problem.
Your store is close to several pubs, and when they close, customers sometimes arrive drunk, loud and occasionally abusive. You know that this particular employee has experienced some unpleasant attention in the past, including inappropriate comments from male customers.
You’ve spoken to her about it. She says she’s fine. She wants to carry on working those shifts.
But you also know that, under changes to the Equality Act 2010 introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025, which took effect on 30 October 2026, you have a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and protect employees from harassment by third parties, including customers.
So, what do you do?
Take her off the late shifts? That might reduce her exposure to harassment, but it could also deprive her of income, disrupt her studies and potentially amount to sex discrimination.
Employ another person to work alongside her? Perhaps, but what if the business genuinely cannot afford it?
Or simply accept that she’s comfortable with the situation and carry on as before?
And here’s the uncomfortable question: at what point does trying to protect an employee become a decision that unfairly disadvantages them?
The law is clear. The practical solutions aren’t always.
What does the law now require employers to do?
From 30 October 2026, employers are required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. The legislation also introduces specific employer liability for harassment by third parties, including customers, clients and members of the public, unless the employer can demonstrate that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent it.
Third-party harassment is harassment of an employee by someone who is not their employer or a colleague. The new liability is not limited to sexual harassment. It covers harassment related to any protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, and a single incident can be enough.
These are important changes, and ones I wholeheartedly support.
Customer abuse is not a rare problem. Usdaw’s 2025 Freedom from Fear survey of more than 8,980 retail staff found that 78% had been verbally abused and 54% had been threatened.
Nobody should have to tolerate sexual harassment simply because they’re doing their job. But I also think we need to acknowledge the challenges these responsibilities create for smaller businesses.
A large retailer might be able to employ security personnel, increase staffing levels, redesign working arrangements or invest in sophisticated monitoring systems.
The owner of a small convenience store, independent restaurant or neighbourhood pub may not have those options.
And while the legislation recognises that what is reasonable will depend on factors such as the size, resources and circumstances of the business, that doesn’t mean smaller employers can simply decide that prevention is unaffordable.
The obligation is to take all reasonable steps, not necessarily the most expensive steps. And protecting someone shouldn’t mean penalising them.
Should you take an employee off shifts to protect her?
Let’s return to our convenience store employee.
She’s capable, experienced and wants to work the late shifts. Yet the employer might be tempted to remove her from those shifts because she’s a woman and therefore perceived to be more vulnerable to unwanted attention.
But think about the message that sends.
The customers behave inappropriately, and the employee loses the shifts she wants.
In trying to protect her, the employer may have created another problem altogether.
Of course, there may be circumstances where a change in working arrangements is necessary. If a risk is serious and cannot be adequately controlled, the employer cannot ignore it simply because the employee is willing to continue.
But surely the starting point should be to address the risk itself, rather than automatically restricting the opportunities available to the person experiencing it?
And that means involving the employee in the conversation, understanding her concerns and exploring alternatives together.
What does prevention actually look like for a small business?
It might be easier than we think. Or at least, some of the solutions might be.
Could the store install better CCTV or lighting? Could an emergency alert system be introduced? Could access be restricted during particularly high-risk hours, perhaps through a serving hatch? Could signage make it clear that abuse of employees will not be tolerated?
Could employees be given clear guidance on refusing service, dealing with inappropriate behaviour and knowing when to call for assistance?
Could the business introduce a simple incident-reporting process so that patterns of behaviour become visible rather than being dismissed as an occasional unpleasant customer?
And could staffing arrangements be reconsidered for particular high-risk periods rather than automatically increasing staffing throughout every evening?
None of these measures guarantees that harassment will never happen. Some may be appropriate; others may not.
But they demonstrate that prevention is about identifying risks, considering options and taking meaningful action.
Importantly, it also means documenting decisions. If an employer concludes that a particular measure is not reasonably practicable, they should be able to explain why, what alternatives were considered and how the remaining risk will be managed.
Simply saying “we can’t afford it” is unlikely to be enough.
Acas makes the same point in its guidance on third-party harassment: “It is a good idea to record why you have not taken steps you’ve decided are not reasonable.”
What if the employee says she's fine?
This is another aspect that I think employers need to understand.
Employees don’t always report inappropriate behaviour. Some don’t want to make a fuss. Others worry about losing shifts, upsetting customers or being labelled difficult.
And some genuinely feel able to deal with situations that others might find intimidating.
Their views matter, and they should absolutely be heard.
But an employer’s responsibility to prevent harassment doesn’t disappear because an employee says they can handle it.
If you know there is a foreseeable risk, you need to consider what reasonable steps can be taken to address it.
That doesn’t necessarily mean launching a formal investigation every time someone mentions an inappropriate comment. It does mean taking concerns seriously, understanding what happened and deciding whether further action is needed.
How should small businesses approach the new duty?
I suspect that many small business owners will look at these changes and wonder how they are expected to comply when they are already juggling rising costs, staffing pressures and the daily demands of keeping their businesses running.
That’s a legitimate concern.
But I would encourage them not to view this simply as another piece of legislation requiring another policy. Instead, ask some practical questions.
Where are our employees most exposed to inappropriate behaviour? Are they working alone? Do they regularly deal with customers who have been drinking? Have there been incidents that we’ve dismissed as simply part of the job?
And, perhaps most importantly, have we actually asked our employees what they experience and what would help them feel safer?
Dismissing incidents as part of the job is exactly what Acas warns against. Its guidance includes the example of a convenience store owner who tells late-shift workers that threats and harassment from customers are “all part of the job”. Acas concludes that it is “very unlikely” the employer has taken all reasonable steps.
A meaningful risk assessment doesn’t have to be an enormous corporate exercise. But it does need to reflect the reality of the business and lead to appropriate action.
Getting the balance right
I don’t believe the intention of the legislation is to make it impossible for small businesses to operate or to remove employees’ freedom to make choices about their working lives.
The challenge is to find a sensible balance between protecting people, respecting their choices and recognising commercial realities.
That balance won’t always be easy to achieve.
But perhaps the most important question for employers is this:
Have we genuinely explored how to reduce the risk, or have we simply transferred the consequences of someone else’s unacceptable behaviour onto the employee?
Because protecting employees shouldn’t mean limiting their opportunities.
And getting this right requires more than good intentions. It requires thought, consultation and a willingness to challenge the way things have always been done.
Frequently asked questions
Q: What is third-party harassment?
A: Third-party harassment is harassment of an employee by someone who is not their employer or a colleague. That includes customers, clients, contractors, and members of the public. Since 30 October 2026, employers can be held liable for it if they have not taken all reasonable steps to prevent it.
Q: What does "all reasonable steps" mean for a small business?
A: What is reasonable depends on the size, resources, and circumstances of the business. A small employer is not expected to match a large retailer's security budget. It is expected to identify risks, consider practical measures, and record why any measure has been ruled out.
Q: Can an employer take someone off late shifts to protect them from harassment?
A: A change may be necessary where a serious risk cannot be controlled. But removing someone from shifts because of their sex could amount to sex discrimination. The starting point should be reducing the risk itself and involving the employee in the decision.
Q: What if an employee says they are happy to carry on?
A: Their views matter and should be heard. But an employee's reassurance does not remove the employer's duty. If a risk is foreseeable, the employer still needs to consider what reasonable steps it can take.
Q: Does third-party liability only cover sexual harassment?
A: No. Employers can be liable for third-party harassment related to any protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, including sex, race, disability, and religion or belief.
