3PB

Employment and Discrimination; Investigations; County Court/High Court

Karen Moss has over 20 years' experience as an employment law specialist, instructed on behalf of both respondents and claimants to undertake all aspects of employment and discrimination work. She heads 3PB's employment and discrimination law group.

She is ranked as Band One by Chambers & Partners 2025 in Employment Junior (South Eastern) “Karen Moss is a widely acclaimed barrister with a tremendous depth of experience handling an array of employment matters including discrimination and whistle-blowing claims. She also expertly represents her clients in breach of contract and confidentiality disputes, and litigation concerning the disclosure of trade secrets”.

Testimonials in Chambers & Partners 2025 include:

“I work with Karen a lot and wouldn't do so if she wasn't excellent at what she does. Whether it's drafting, advocating or anything in between, Karen is the safest pair of hands going”

“Karen is excellent at handling complex matters”

“Karen is an excellent advocate who has won cases we thought we might lose!”

“Karen is extremely good and very thorough”

Karen is also ranked by Legal 500 2025 as a Tier 1 Leading Junior in the South Eastern Circuit Employment and Tier 3 Leading Junior in London Employment.

Testimonials in Legal 500 2025 include:

'Karen is effortlessly calm and collected with complex matters and tricky clients. She is brilliant, sound advocate, persuasive and robust. Her written advice is always clear, concise and practical.' – South Eastern

“Her knowledge, advocacy and experience in employment and discrimination law far exceed her year of call. Her command of the court room and even the most difficult of judges and opponents is admirable” - London

Her areas of specialist knowledge include all forms of unfair and wrongful dismissal as well as discrimination and harassment relating to all protected characteristics, victimisation, unlawful detriment and whistleblowing claims.  She has particular interest in disability, age and sex discrimination, and regularly advises on TUPE, breach of contract, pensions, working time, stress at work claims, unlawful deductions from wages, equal pay claims, post-employment restrictions and injunctive relief. She regularly appears in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and has represented clients in Court of Appeal on employment-related matters.

She has been instructed to draft a wide variety of employment pleadings and frequently advises parties pre- and post-action in industrial relations matters generally and tribunal and/or county court and/or High Court litigation.

Karen undertakes work via Direct Access for lay clients, on Conditional Fee and Damages Based Agreements and on a pro bono basis in appropriate cases. Additionally she has represented parties in judicial and other mediations regarding employment and wider commercial disputes.

She gives lectures, seminars and produces training material on the development of employment law to solicitors, human resources and other professionals.

Karen is known as having a down-to-earth and practical approach with clients, combined with being a knowledgeable, skilful and tenacious advocate.

Publications

Post Pnaiser Protection - ((1st September 2017) NLJ 13) an update on discrimination arising from disability after Pnaiser v NHS England and another, published by the New Law Journal'

EAT Guidance in Pnaiser and Hampshire v Wyatt - An update on knowledge and compensation in disability discrimination cases (from the 'Solent Employment Law Training Day')' ELA online resource 10th February 2017

'Keeping an eye on the Information' (23rd July 2004) 154 NLJ 11

Employment and discriminationKaren is an employment law specialist with over 20 years of experience. She has been most recently ranked as a Tier 1 Leading Junior in the South Eastern Circuit Employment ‘She is a superstar: a lawyer of the strongest calibre and an excellent advocate with strong cross-examination and client care skills’ and praised for being ‘personable with all clients’ and being able to ‘put witnesses at ease while keeping them focussed on their evidence‘. As a Leading Junior at the London Employment Bar, she is recognised as ‘Superb at processing complex matters and cutting through to the core legal and commercial issues in play, her technical knowledge is extensive and impressive’ (Legal 500 2021).

She has been recognised in this year’s Chambers and Partners UK 2021 as a “Widely acclaimed barrister with a tremendous depth of experience handling an array of employment matters including discrimination and whistle-blowing claims… "She's absolutely fantastic with clients and also just gets the legal issues instantly. She is my go-to barrister for everything because she can turn her hand to anything – she's absolutely incredible." "She routinely impresses me with opinions and her advocacy. She is very quick at cutting through the complex factual background to get to a clear legal view.”

Employment tribunal work has included both Claimant and Respondent work relating to unfair dismissal (substantive and procedural, constructive or actual), wrongful dismissal, discrimination (sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, religion and belief; direct and indirect), harassment, victimisation, stress at work claims, unlawful detriment claims, equal pay claims, TUPE, breach of contract, PIDA/whistleblowing claims, working time and unlawful deductions from wages. She has a particular interest in disability discrimination claims, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, and race and sex discrimination claims.

She is also regularly instructed to appear or to advise in matters of employment-related insolvency and judicial or other employment mediations. She has been instructed to draft a wide variety of employment pleadings and frequently advises parties pre- and post-action in industrial relations matters generally and tribunal and/or county court and/or High Court litigation, including post-termination restrictions and injunctive proceedings. She regularly appears in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and has appeared in the Court of Appeal on employment matters.

Karen undertakes work via Direct Access for lay clients, on Conditional Fee and Damages Based Agreements and on a pro bono basis in appropriate cases. Additionally she has represented parties in judicial and other mediations regarding employment and wider commercial disputes.

She gives lectures, seminars and produces training material on the development of employment law to solicitors, human resources and other professionals.

Reported and interesting appellate cases:

Selivanov v Reckitt Benckiser Corporate Services Limited KB-2025-001253

Successfully sought an interim injunction preventing the summary dismissal of an employee accused of gross misconduct, in circumstances where his immigration status would have been imperilled if he had been summarily dismissed. The Applicant would be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain from August 2025, but could have lost that right had his employment been terminated before then. Mr Justice Griffiths was persuaded that damages for a wrongful or unfair dismissal would be an inadequate remedy.

Hill v St Pauls C of E Primary and Nursery School and others 3316504/2021 and 3323824/2021  

After a 24-day disability discrimination hearing, the tribunal judgment sent on 23rd May 2025 revealed that Karen had successfully defended all discrimination claims against the school, some individually-named teachers, members of the governing body and an independent grievance investigator.  All discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims were dismissed. The Claimant, a nursery teacher, who had Long Covid / Chronic Fatigue, claimed that she had suffered direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, disability-related harassment, a failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. Rather than upholding the alleged discriminatory conspiracy to dismiss the Claimant as a result of her disability, the Tribunal found that the school were “simply trying to do (their) best to deal with a difficult situation within a tiny school with limited resources”.

Theisen and Others v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd: 2304618/2020

Leading 3PB’s Jo Laxton, Karen was successful in this case, in which she represented 54 cabin crew claimants who brought unfair dismissal claims against Virgin Atlantic Airways. After a hard-fought trial stretching over 30 days in the summer and winter of 2024. The group of on-board managers, almost all female in their 40s and 50s, successfully persuaded the tribunal that, despite VAA’s considerable resources, there had been an unfair selection process which resulted in around 1500 cabin crew being made redundant as a result of Covid. Read the judgment here.

Ahmed v Cardinal Hume Academies UKEAT/0096/18 29th March 2019

Successfully defended an appeal regarding disability harassment and direct discrimination because of disability. Mr Justice Choudhury (P) found that the tribunal had been correct to find that if it was not reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an adverse environment for him, then it should not be found to have done so. Additionally, the tribunal had concluded that the Appellant had been suspended because of his difficulties with handwriting. That was a finding that treatment was because of the adverse effect of an impairment or of something arising from disability; it was not a finding that the treatment was because of the disability – whether dyspraxia or some other unspecified physical or mental impairment - itself.

Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley & District Ltd UKEAT/0290/18/JOJ 11th March 2019

HHJ Shanks determined that where the original decision to dismiss was for disability-related reasons, without knowledge of the disability, but the appeal decision, upholding the dismissal was for the same reasons, with the requisite knowledge of a disability, that was actionable by an employee claiming to have been dismissed because of something arising in consequence of her disability. The ET had failed to apply the correct thresholds for liability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 and so the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal

Philcox v CGDM Ltd TA Andrew Wilson & Co A2/2016/2804

May 2017 Representing the successful Respondent in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Underhill set aside the permission to appeal granted last year by Lord Justice Elias in this factually complex case involving multiple allegations of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal (EAT in February 2017 EAT/0819/16/DA).

Hampshire County Council v Wyatt UKEAT/0013/16/DA

October 2016 Represented the successful Respondent before the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Mrs Justice Simler DBE who gave invaluable guidance in relation to the divisibility of injuries and proportionate reduction of ITF and personal injury awards and on the use of medical evidence in employment tribunals for personal injury claims.

Pnaiser v NHS England and Coventry City Council  [2016] IRLR 170

November 2015 Represented the successful Appellant in showing that a prospective employer could be liable for discrimination arising in consequence of a disability, by relying on a reference which itself was discriminatory, even if the prospective employer did not know of the link between negative reference and the disability. The decision of the Tribunal overturned and a decision upholding her claims for disability discrimination was substituted.

Scotthorne v Four Seasons Conservatories (UK) Limited  UKEAT/0178/10/ZT

Whether the Tribunal was correct not to order disclosure of documented advice from “Employment Consultants” or HR professionals who were not legally qualified on the grounds of either legal advice privilege or litigation privilege and the application of New Victoria Hospital v Ryan [1993] IRLR 202 and Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No.6) [2005] 1 AC 610.

Snows Motor Group Ltd v Palmerino UKEAT/1512/08DM

Whether the Tribunal had “slipped into the substitution mindset” following the Court of Appeal decision in London Ambulance v Small and the applicability of the statutory disciplinary procedures where detailed evidence had not been provided until the Step 2 hearing.

Lloyd-Briden v Worthing College [2007] 3 CMLR 27, EAT

The applicability and effect of the ECJ decision in Mangold on the age discrimination provisions before the implementation date in the UK.

London Borough of Camden v Price-Job UKEAT/0507/06/DM [2007] All ER (D) 259 (Dec)

Question of whether the Tribunal correctly considered all relevant circumstances of Respondent to a DDA claim, and whether they considered the effect of s.3A(6) appropriately. Additionally the application of the law in relation to whether an appropriate assessment of an employee is a necessary pre-condition to reasonable adjustments.

Roberts v Valleyrose Ltd T/A Fernbank Nursing Home UKEAT/03944/06/D [2007] All ER (D) 163 (Aug)

Question of whether the Tribunal was biased against the Appellant and whether the Appellant had had a fair opportunity to refute an allegation of bad faith in a PIDA claim.

Investigations

Karen Moss has extensive experience of advising investigators in a number of different sectors, including healthcare, the legal profession, including partnership disputes, communications, manufacturing and education.

The investigations with which she has been involved have ranged from straight-forward disciplinaries and grievances, to factually and legally complex, wide-ranging high-stakes cases involving C-suite executives, whistleblowing and discrimination allegations. She has particular expertise in cases involving disabilities or suspected disabilities, especially those involving mental health.

Her skills are in distilling voluminous information into the salient points, being efficient, incisive and comprehensive. Her down-to-earth, practical nature makes her easy to work with.

County Court/High Court

Karen Moss is frequently instructed on High Court applications for interim injunctions concerning an employee’s breach of express and implied terms during and after their employment, including breach of fiduciary duty and directors’ duties, breach of confidentiality, protection of Databases and Trade Secrets, enforcement of restrictive covenants and third party liability. Successful applications have included interim and final injunctions, springboard relief, orders for delivery up and destruction, and substantial damages.

She has advised claimants and defendants, including C-suite executives, on negotiating appropriate undertakings, enforceability and severability of covenants, team moves and the use of garden leave, in addition to providing practical tactical guidance both before and after a claim is issued.

Year of call 2002