Padma Tadi-BoothIt is estimated that one child in every UK classroom is now born through IVF, yet employment law has failed to keep pace with this social shift. For HR professionals, this creates a widening policy gap, leaving organisations to rely on inconsistent approaches to absence, discretion and goodwill at a time when employees are often at their most vulnerable.
The legal landscape
Despite IVF becoming increasingly common, there is no specific statutory right to paid or unpaid time off for fertility treatment in the UK. Employees typically fall back on sick leave, compassionate leave or informal arrangements with managers. This patchwork approach not only creates inconsistency but also exposes employers to legal and reputational risk.
IVF treatment is medically intensive. According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, more than 50,000 patients undergo IVF each year in the UK, with each cycle lasting several weeks and involving multiple appointments. Where employers already permit time off for medical or dental appointments, failing to extend this to fertility treatment could potentially give rise to sex discrimination claims.
While there is no standalone right to IVF leave, existing legal protections do apply at certain stages. Employees undergoing fertility treatment are protected from sex discrimination where unfavourable treatment relates to their likelihood of becoming pregnant. From the point of embryo transfer, an employee must be treated as pregnant until pregnancy is confirmed or implantation fails, meaning they benefit from the same protections as any pregnant worker, including protection from dismissal or detriment.
However, as IVF often involves multiple cycles, many employees move in and out of these protections, creating a legal grey area that can be difficult for HR teams to navigate. Careful tracking and sensitive handling are essential to avoid inadvertent breaches.
Gaps and risks
The gaps in protection become even more pronounced when treatment is unsuccessful. The HFEA estimates that around 75% of IVF cycles do not result in pregnancy. At present, there is no statutory right to time off following unsuccessful implantation, meaning employees again rely on sick leave or compassionate leave. This may change in 2027, when pregnancy loss leave is expected to be introduced under the Employment Rights Bill, potentially extending to IVF embryo transfer loss. Until then, uncertainty remains.
Beyond legal risk, there is a clear ethical and cultural dimension. A recent CIPD survey found that more than 70% of workplaces do not have a fertility policy. Where employees feel unsupported during fertility treatment, the impact can be significant, including increased absenteeism, reduced engagement, resignations and reputational damage at a time when wellbeing and inclusion are board-level concerns.
Practical steps for HR
Forward-thinking employers should not wait for legislative reform. There are practical steps HR teams can take now to reduce risk and provide clarity. This includes explicitly referencing
fertility treatment in absence and wellbeing policies, ensuring managers understand the legal protections that apply at different stages, and offering flexibility where possible, whether through paid or unpaid leave or adjusted working arrangements. Clear communication is critical, so employees understand what support is available without having to ask at a moment of vulnerability.
IVF highlights a broader truth about modern employment law: social reality often moves faster than statute. Until the law catches up, HR professionals sit at the front line, balancing legal compliance, employee wellbeing and organisational culture.
Those who act now to close policy gaps will not only protect their organisations but also demonstrate meaningful support for employees navigating fertility treatment.
Padma Tadi-Booth is employment partner at Hill Dickinson
