Summary: An ongoing tribunal case involving Google UK shows the legal risks when whistleblowing disclosures are followed by redundancies, even if unrelated. With the Employment Rights Act strengthening harassment prevention duties in October 2026, HR teams must ensure investigations are comprehensive, decision-making is independent from complaints, and timing is carefully managed. Even legitimate decisions can create liability if impact on the whistleblower was foreseeable and poorly handled.
A recent, high-profile employment tribunal claim, involving Google UK, has brought renewed focus on how businesses navigate whistleblowing, sexual harassment and organisational decision-making during restructures, particularly as they unfold at the same time.
Although the tribunal’s judgment is yet to be announced, the case already offers valuable lessons for HR professionals navigating misconduct investigations alongside role changes or redundancy. This will become even more vital as the legal obligations around harassment and whistleblowing protection are due to be tightened later this year.
A “campaign of retaliation” at Google UK
The claimant, Ms Woodall, a senior employee in Google’s UK sales function, was made redundant as part of an alleged “campaign of retaliation” after she reported her manager’s serious sexual misconduct, which involved inappropriate discussions and behaviour towards his clients and colleagues.
The manager was later sacked for gross misconduct, as a result. Google has since denied the allegation that Woodall was made redundant for whistleblowing, maintaining that her redundancy formed part of a wider reorganisation and that subsequent events were “perfectly normal business decisions”.
Even before the tribunal reaches its conclusion, the dispute highlights the risks employers face when whistleblowing disclosures are followed by changes to responsibilities, reporting lines or roles.
Account reallocations and redundancy decisions in large organisations
One of the central allegations in this case concerns the reassignment of client accounts while the misconduct investigation was ongoing. From an employer’s perspective, account movement may be deemed routine or commercially justified, however tribunals are alert to timing.
Employers must recognise the importance of evidencing that such changes are genuinely standard practice and unrelated to any ongoing investigations or complaints raised by employees. Clear paper trails, supported by witness evidence, are often decisive in persuading tribunals that actions were justifiable and unrelated.
Where whistleblowers are later selected for redundancy, employers must show that decisions were transparently reached, based on objective criteria, and applied consistently across the workforce. In large organisations, this should typically involve demonstrating that reviews were thorough, independently assessed and well-documented.
Independence and procedural fairness
Ensuring independence in decision-making is essential in whistleblowing cases. Tribunals often examine how witnesses are selected during the investigation, whether the investigation scope expanded appropriately as new issues emerged, and whether findings were handled impartially. A robust, independent process can significantly reduce litigation risk.
Where possible, redundancy or performance decisions involving a whistleblower should be taken by individuals unconnected to the original complaint or investigation. While this may be challenging in smaller teams, larger employers are generally expected to select individuals unrelated to any point of the claim to aid the investigation, ensuring procedural fairness.
Causation versus coincidence
Claims rarely rest on a single act. In this case, Ms Woodall alleges that she was subjected to a cumulative “campaign of retaliation” following her whistleblowing disclosure. This will be central to the tribunal’s assessment and carries significant risk for employers.
Tribunals assess alleged retaliation by considering the totality of evidence. Changes to accounts, responsibilities, or role status are weighed alongside the employer’s stated reasons and supporting documentation. Where explanations are well evidenced and align with established practice, employers are better placed to demonstrate coincidence rather than causation.
Witness credibility holds weight
However, documentary evidence is only part of the picture. Witness credibility often proves pivotal, as decision-makers in the investigatory process – or those corroborating the witnesses’ claim – are required to explain their actions and thoughts under scrutiny. Even robust paperwork can be undermined by unconvincing testimony.
Evidence of wider inappropriate behaviour, particularly where sexual harassment is alleged, may indeed lend weight to the claim. For example, in this case, allegations of a “boys’ club” culture is a significant part of the wider context.
Tribunals may consider exchanges in a paper trail, corroborated witness accounts and whether management or HR thoroughly addressed inappropriate remarks or conduct. While culture alone does not establish liability, it can influence how actions are interpreted.
Perception matters
Even where employers believe decisions were legitimate or issues with culture and behaviour were properly tackled, tribunals place weight on how actions might reasonably be perceived by the whistleblower.
The sincerity and consistency of witnesses, the clarity of explanations given at the time, and sensitivity to the individual’s position all matter. A tribunal may accept that reasons were legitimate yet still find detriment if the impact on the claimant was foreseeable and poorly managed, affecting both liability and remedy.
Practical safeguards for HR
The case also unfolds against significant legislative change. Since October 2024, employers have been under an enhanced duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, with the risk of a 25% uplift in compensation for claimants where they fail to do so.
This duty is expected to strengthen further under the Employment Rights Act, coming into force in October 2026, shifting towards a requirement to take all reasonable steps.
When restructures overlap with misconduct investigations, HR teams should ensure:
- The investigations are comprehensive
- Decision-making is independent from the complaint where possible
- Training, policies and risk assessments are actively implemented
- All levels of staff partake in training and comply with policies to ensure management is held to rigorous standards
Perhaps the clearest lesson is the need to ensure that whistleblowing does not taint subsequent decision-making. Even if a tribunal ultimately finds no causal link, employers face significant risk where there is any suggestion that disclosures influenced redundancy, discipline, account changes, pay or appraisals. The case also serves as a reminder that even large, well-known employers are not immune from tribunal scrutiny.
At the same time, this case sends a wider signal to employees, particularly women, that concerns about behaviour, especially sexual misconduct, can be raised and challenged.
As such, for HR leaders in particular, the message is clear: robust processes, cultural vigilance and legal awareness are now essential, not optional, in an evolving regulatory landscape.
Key takeaways
As legislative protections around whistleblowing and harassment strengthen, consider these safeguards for your organisation:
- Recognise that timing creates risk, even when decisions are justified. When whistleblowing disclosures are followed by account changes, redundancy or role adjustments, tribunals examine timing closely. Can you evidence that such changes are genuinely standard practice and supported by clear paper trails? Even routine business decisions need rigorous documentation.
- Build independence into your decision-making processes. Where possible, ensure redundancy or performance decisions involving a whistleblower are taken by individuals unconnected to the original complaint or investigation. Larger employers are expected to demonstrate that reviews were thorough, independently assessed and procedurally fair.
- Understand that culture shapes how your actions are interpreted. Evidence of wider inappropriate behaviour, such as a ‘boys’ club’ culture, may influence how tribunals view management decisions. Are you actively addressing inappropriate remarks and conduct through training, policies and risk assessments that hold all levels of staff, especially management, to rigorous standards?
- Remember that perception matters as much as intention. Tribunals place weight on how actions might reasonably be perceived by the whistleblower. Even where you believe decisions were legitimate, if the impact was foreseeable and poorly managed, you may still face liability. Are you considering sensitivity to the individual’s position alongside your business rationale?
Rhys Wyborn is a partner and member of the employment team at law firm, Shakespeare Martineau.
