As an employment law solicitor, I’ve been closely following the evolving trends around hybrid working, and the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) caught my attention.
Between January and March 2025, 28 per cent of adults worked on a hybrid basis, up from 25 per cent the previous year.
This ongoing transition to hybrid work brings real opportunities for flexibility, productivity and work-life balance for employees across the country.
However, it also raises significant legal considerations that many employers risk overlooking, especially when hybrid arrangements are offered more readily to some staff than others.
The ONS data shows that workers with a degree or equivalent qualification are ten times more likely to be in hybrid roles than those with no qualifications.
Higher earners and professionals aged 30 to 49 also appear to dominate the hybrid workforce.
While this may reflect the nature of certain roles, it also flags potential legal issues if access to hybrid working becomes linked (even indirectly) to protected characteristics such as age or sex.
It was also found that “[a]lmost 9 out of 10 workers with a “degree or equivalent” worked in one of four occupation groups:
- Managers, directors and senior officials
- Professional occupations
- Associate professional occupations
- Administrative and secretarial occupations
These were the top four occupation groups where hybrid work was most common, which may give those who hold these educational qualifications greater access to hybrid work.”
Whilst it is clear that some roles cannot be suitable for hybrid working because the work cannot be undertaken remotely, e.g. some care, customer service or construction roles, employers should ensure that they do not discriminate against employees.
This could be by requiring a minimum seniority level or pay grade to consider hybrid working, with no objective justification for this requirement.
Indirect discrimination occurs where a workplace has rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, yet put a certain category of people at an unfair disadvantage, and the employer cannot show that the rules or arrangements are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Direct discrimination occurs where “because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”.
A protected characteristic in this case could be age, for example. If an employee is not permitted to undertake hybrid working because of their age, this could amount to direct age discrimination.
If employers allow hybrid working for some roles but not for others or for some employees but not others, employers should keep a clear record of the reasoning why hybrid working is not appropriate for the roles or employees for which it is not permitted.
Employers should consider the content of their contracts and hybrid working policies regularly to ensure that they reflect the reality of the situation.
Several large and high-profile employers have recently mandated that employees must return to the office to work for at least a specified number of days per week e.g. 3 days per week. Employers should check that their contracts allow this.
PwC has made clear that it believes that 3 days per week is required in the office to enable the training of more junior members of staff.
It may be that younger workers on lower pay are undertaking training, and for this, it may be better for them to be based in the office.
However, employers should keep a clear record of this reasoning if this is the case. They should also keep the situation under review.
Many employees prefer to hybrid work and employers should consider this before mandating that employees should return to the office completely or for an increasing number of days as this could affect their staff retention.
Whilst hybrid working is not suitable for all employees, it is something employers should consider both in respect of whether to allow it and if not, the reasons why.