Challenge Poverty Week 2026: Fair Work for Disabled Women

This week is Challenge Poverty Week and for today’s theme of Fair Work we’re highlighting disabled women’s experiences of the workplace and barriers to accessing fair work.

Poverty through a disability and gendered lens 

Women in Scotland are more likely to experience poverty than men throughout their lives and continue to face a gender pay gap. The reasons behind women’s high risk of poverty have been explored in our previous blog about inadequate incomes. Today, we are highlighting disabled women’s disproportionately high levels of poverty and barriers to accessing fair work. In 2024, the poverty rate for disabled women in the UK was 35%, 17 percentage points higher than for non-disabled women. When the higher cost of living associated with disability is taken into consideration (calculated at £1,095 per month on average) it is estimated that poverty rates rise closer to 50%.

The pay gap data for disabled women is striking here, as disabled women’s average hourly pay is lower than non-disabled men (23.2% gap), non-disabled women (9.6% gap) and disabled men (9.2% gap). When disabled women are employed, they are more likely to be in low-paid and precarious work, which is a major cause of the higher level of poverty they experience. A key driver is acute and chronic occupational segregation, with more than 40% of disabled women working in health, social care or education, sectors that are often low paid and undervalued.

Women’s poverty is intrinsically linked to children’s poverty and families with a disabled adult or child are one of the Scottish Government’s priority family groups at greatest risk of poverty. Disabled mothers face structural barriers to employment, such a lack of support in the workplace, including flexible working and other reasonable adjustments, and inaccessible childcare, due to both disability discrimination and gendered norms around caring. Despite this, the latest Child Poverty Delivery plan has no specific actions targeted at the barriers disabled women face in accessing and progressing in employment.

Last week, Close the Gap published important new research into fair work for young mothers. Strengths not Stigma found that half of the young mothers who participated in the research had a long-term physical or mental condition and for some this affected their ability to enter and sustain paid work. The research also found barriers for young mothers in accessing suitable childcare for disabled children and those with additional support needs. This is significant, as 55% of households with a mother aged under 25 are living in poverty, the highest rate of all the priority family groups. Furthermore, 42% of young mothers experience in-work poverty.

Disabled women and “economic inactivity” 

Disabled women are also more likely to be underemployed or ‘economically inactive’. In fact, data has shown that ill health has become the top reason for women being economically inactive, surpassing caring responsibilities for the first time. Many disabled women want to work but face structural barriers such as discrimination in recruitment, inaccessible workplaces, inadequate employer awareness of reasonable adjustments, and a lack of accessible childcare. These factors drive the disability employment gap and contribute to higher levels of poverty.  

This health-driven rise in economic inactivity occurs against the backdrop of UK Government proposals to cut disability benefits (including Personal Independence Payment and the health element of Universal Credit) and reduce Access to Work support. In our response to the UK Government’s Pathways to Work consultation we expressed strong concerns that these cuts will force many disabled women out of employment. 

Centring disabled women’s experiences of work 

Last year, Close the Gap published Excluded by Design: Research on disabled women’s employment in Scotland. This research uncovered discrimination towards disabled women at every stage of employment, from recruitment to access to reasonable adjustments and development opportunities. Concerningly, almost three-quarters of the survey respondents had experienced physical or mental harm at work.  

Under the Equality Act (2010), disabled people can request reasonable adjustments at work. Despite this, many disabled women face challenges obtaining them, with only 36.4% of respondents reporting adjustments were put in place immediately. Participants reported having to repeatedly advocate for reasonable adjustments due to poor employer understanding. 

A ‘hierarchy of impairment’ was evident in the research, with mental health needs and neurodivergence less likely to be accommodated by employers. This is particularly concerning as recruitment processes were found to be especially challenging for neurodivergent women when compared with those with mobility-related access needs. Neurodivergent women further reported reluctance to disclose their condition due to fear of stigma. 

These factors compound to create significant barriers to disabled women accessing and progressing in fair work, contributing to their risk of poverty. 

What is needed to achieve fair work for disabled women 

Disabled women remain invisible in policy frameworks, with no specific mention in the Programme for Government 2026-2031, despite promises to increase disabled people’s employment and review employability support services. 

Issues affecting disabled women sit at the intersection of multiple policy frameworks on disability, gender, employability, the economy and fair work. These areas often operate in silos, meaning the intersecting inequalities disabled women face are not addressed. In the Scottish Government’s Fair Work action plan, for example, there are no specific actions targeted at reducing disabled women’s economic inequality.    

The Scottish Government needs a robust and meaningful intersectional analysis of how gender and disability, as well as compounding factors like race and young motherhood, create distinct inequalities which push disabled women into poverty. To do this, there must be better intersectional data collection and accessibility to enable targeted action to address the barriers disabled women face. Close the Gap are calling for disabled women to be centred in future fair work policy and in the current review of employability services. Meanwhile, the UK Government must halt the planned cuts to Universal Credit which will have a devastating effect on disabled women. Urgent action is also needed to improve Access to Work, including adequate investment in the programme to address the acute delays, and ensure that the needs of disabled women are at the centre.  

Employers also play a hugely important role in ensuring their policies and practice do not exacerbate inequalities for disabled women. Line managers and recruiters need to be trained on accessibility and providing reasonable adjustments and accessibility. Flexible working should be a default-yes policy so that disabled women can better manage work with their condition or impairment, and commitments like childcare. Employers should also review their performance management system to ensure that disabled women are not disproportionately penalised when they don’t have the support they need to do their job. Many disabled women want to progress in their role but current practice is preventing them, so it’s also important for employer to review how progression happens in their organisation to ensure that disabled women are not disadvantaged.

To find out what else needs to change, read our fill list of recommendations.  

The evolution of sexual harassment in the workplace

It has been 40 years since the landmark ruling in 1986, which recognised sexual harassment as a form of workplace discrimination under UK law. The claim was brought forward by a school lab tech in Scotland and was the first time sexual harassment was recognised under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. So, what has happened since this first legal case?  

Unfortunately, sexual harassment continues to pervade women’s lives, both in and out of the workplace. We saw the introduction of new laws such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which looked at banning any conduct that caused ‘alarm or distress’, covering the workplace, public spaces, and online platforms, but it didn’t explicitly mention the word ‘sexual’ and required there to be a pattern of behaviour. There was a clear gap in protection which was then covered by the Equality Act 2010, that more clearly defined women’s experiences in the workplace, by including the word ‘sexual’, and treating a single incident as enough of a violation.

Even with this increased legal protection, due to the normalisation of sexual harassment, it continues to be underreported with many women feeling they wouldn’t be believed, or they’d be blamed for what happened. The power that perpetrators had to silence women become ever clearer with the #MeToo movement created by Tarana Burke, which sparked global conversation in 2017 and spotlighted the lack of action workplaces were taking to protect women. There have also been countless high-profile cases exposing the use of non-disclosures agreements to protect perpetrators, such as the Presidents Club dinner which was only attended by men and where women working as hostesses were sexually assaulted. Sexual harassment also remains a prevailing problem in politics, serving to constrain women’s representation at all levels of government. A recent report by Engender on women councillor’s experiences in local government found that 40% of those who had experienced sexism, misogyny and violence had experienced sexual harassment. For many women, in all types of workplaces, sexual harassment is a constant and daily reality.

This year, Close the Gap is celebrating 25 years of working on women’s labour market participation in Scotland. We wanted to take this time to look back over the last 25 years to see where practice on preventing sexual harassment has changed. While the recent changes in the law, the Worker Protection (Amendment to Equality Act 2010) Act and the Employment Rights Act, have been long overdue, legislation alone will not eradicate sexual harassment. Significant work remains to ensure victim-survivors feel safe to report and are supported in the workplace. The increased resistance to equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives, the rise in far-right politics, and the exploitation of modern ways of working, all threaten to undermine progress. Against this backdrop, tackling sexual harassment in the workplace is as important as ever.

Sexual harassment’s prevalence

To start looking at how practice around sexual harassment has changed over the last 25 years, we need to look at the numbers. It’s widely recognised that sexual harassment occurs in the workplace, but its prevalence and how it manifests in the workplace are often underestimated and misunderstood. We’ve seen an increasing amount of research over the last 25 years exposing the scope of the issue. Sexual harassment is widespread and persistent, and its systemic nature means it happens in all sectors. However, the characteristics of certain industries such as hospitality, retail and care, in which there is more insecure work, make women more vulnerable to workplace sexual harassment and it’s even more difficult for them to access support or justice when it happens.

Similarly, research has also shown that male-dominated sectors are often hotspots for sexual harassment. A 2022 survey of 6,000 workers found that 41% of the women working in construction said, ‘the fear of sexual harassment has an impact on their career’. In the technology sector, which is similar in terms of its gender split, 26% of the survey respondents had experienced inappropriate comments or behaviour from a male colleague. Further, Unite’s recent survey polled women working across sectors and found that there’s higher levels of staff experiencing sexual harassment in construction, civil air transport, passenger transport, food, drink and agricultural and road transport, warehousing and logistics, with many incidents going unreported.

Within the healthcare sectors, over the last 5 years, there’s been an increased focus on exposing the high levels of sexism, sexual harassment and sexual assault that nurses, healthcare assistants, trainee doctors and consultants are facing from colleagues and patients. Campaigning group, Surviving in Scrubs, revealed in their 2023 report that 42% of doctors and nurses that were surveyed had experienced sexual harassment and 20% had been sexually assaulted. On their website, they invite victim-survivors to anonymously share their experiences and currently have 239 stories. The British Medical Association found in their ‘Sexism in Medicine’ report that 91% of women doctors experienced sexism in the last two years. Further, a large number of respondents reported that they experienced unwanted physical conduct in their workplace that caused them embarrassment, distress or offence. Finally, research from Nursing Times and Unison found that 61% of nurses had experienced sexual harassment. The Royal College of Nursing has also done significant work exposing the high levels of sexist and racist abuse that nurses are subjected to.

This is just a snapshot of what is being reported across sectors, and it’s important to remember that sexual harassment is significantly underreported, with many who will never report. While the available data highlights a widespread issue, the scale of the problem is likely to be much higher than the numbers would suggest.

How sexual harassment has evolved

We’ve seen the ways sexual harassment is perpetrated change to adapt to the ways we work. For example, using tech. More recently, some women’s organisations have seen an increase in being targeted, with online events that have been infiltrated by ‘Zoombombing’, a relatively new phrase to describe the hijacking of online meetings, whereby hackers display pornographic images, videos and abuse without people’s consent. Further, we’ve heard examples of colleagues sending explicit texts, messaging after-hours, mis-using access to colleagues’ personal phone numbers, watching pornography at work, using AI to create inappropriate content about colleagues, sending repeated inappropriate messages and content, and much more.

These newer forms of harassment haven’t replaced more ‘traditional behaviours’ but instead, they add to them. Sexual harassment spans both physical and digital workspaces, requiring employers to understand how risks have changed. Preventing sexual harassment means recognising that inappropriate behaviour can occur wherever work takes place, whether in the office, online, or through digital communication.

What’s changing?

With an increasing amount of research on sexual harassment, legal changes and more conversations happening in workplaces, practices, albeit slowly, seem to be changing. Something we often hear employers tell us at Close the Gap is ‘I don’t know what I can say anymore in case it’s considered sexual harassment’. This signals that we are seeing a shift in understanding about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, but we have further to go.

While the introduction of the Worker Protection (Amendment to the Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 kickstarted action in many workplaces to finally look at prevention, the new legislation faced criticism for its watered-down approach. Some of these gaps were helpfully addressed in the new Employer Rights Act, which puts further legal responsibility on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment (instead of just reasonable steps) and to address third-party harassment.

The Employment Rights Act also brings in new rules about the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). While it doesn’t entirely ban the use of NDAs, they can no longer be used to silence employees who have experienced harassment or discrimination.

Also, from April 2026, sexual harassment is a ‘qualifying disclosure’ under whistleblowing law meaning that whistleblowers have protection from detriment and unfair dismissal if they make a sexual harassment disclosure. This protection is applicable even if the sexual harassment or disclosure happened before 6^th April 2026.

In addition to these legal changes, we’ve seen work in different sectors, such as colleges and universities to upskill staff to respond to disclosures and to create a zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment. Colleges and universities were some of the first institutions to use anonymous reporting, and we’ve seen more organisations looking at this as a good practice example for introducing additional reporting routes while they build trust within the formal routes.

Close the Gap has seen changes in the work we do with employers. Through Equally Safe at Work accreditation, employers have developed standalone sexual harassment policies and started to openly discuss sexual harassment as an issue that needs to be addressed. Also, they’ve rolled out training for managers on how to respond to reports and disclosures and have looked at how to collect data on staff experiences of reporting.

Further work is needed for employers to understand what an intersectional approach looks like in their practice on preventing and addressing sexual harassment. Assuming a one size fits all approach to this work will fall short of delivering a safe workplace. It will inevitably overlook the compounding barriers experienced by racially minoritised women, disabled women, young women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, leaving them disproportionately vulnerable to sexual harassment.

What you can do

As we know, sexual harassment is not an isolated issue. It is a part of workplace culture, which is caused and reinforced by gender inequality, occupational segregation and unequal power dynamics that continues to characterise the labour market. By understanding how sexual harassment impacts women’s experiences at work, employers will be better able to support them and make their workplace safer.

Close the Gap offers practical tools and support to help employers stamp out sexual harassment and build a safer, more inclusive workforce. For the public and third sector, you can build capacity and improve working practice on sexual harassment by joining the Equally Safe at Work employer accreditation programme. As well, our Community of Practice peer support network offers the opportunity for employers to learn about criteria-related and specialist subjects with expert speakers, while also sharing best practice with employers across sectors.

Another important resource is the Think Business Think Equality toolkit which provides tailored support for small and medium sized businesses, and third sector organisations to improve their employment practice on sexual harassment.

For more information and support

If you have been affected by any of this content, or require further information or support, contact the organisations below. This isn’t an exhaustive list, but it may be useful as a starting point and guide you to the right support.

Scottish Women’s Rights Centre

Monday 10am-12:30pm and Wednesday 10am-1pm

08088 010 789

Amina - The Muslim Women’s Resource Centre

Monday - Friday 10am-4pm

0808 801 0301

Hemat Gryffe Women’s Aid

24-hour support

0141 353 0859

LGBT Health and Wellbeing Helpline

Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday 12-9pm and Sunday 1-6pm

0800 464 7000

 

 

New research on young mothers reveals urgent need for systemic change

Close the Gap are working in partnership with Save the Children to deliver a two-year project to understand and address the barriers that young mothers (aged 16-25) face in the Scottish labour market, particularly with regards to in-work poverty and sustaining fair work. 

Since the Fair Work for Young Mothers project began in June 2025, the first phase of work has focused on building an evidence base about young mothers’ experiences in the labour market. We have been working closely with our Research and Campaign Advisers, a group of 8 young mothers whose lived experience has been invaluable in guiding the research design and framing of findings. 

Young mothers, poverty, and the labour market

A woman’s age at the birth of her first child is likely to be substantially lower in the most deprived areas of the country. Of the six priority groups identified in Scottish Government’s Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan, the risk of poverty is highest (55 percent) for households with a mother aged under 25. Mothers under 25 are also more likely than other groups to experience poverty despite being in paid work, with this being the case for 42 percent of young mothers. 

Young women aged 16-24 are concentrated in low-paid and service sector roles like caring and service, administrative and secretarial, and sales and customer services occupations. In contrast, young men dominate in more technical and higher-paying manual occupations. Data on the distribution of 16–24-year-olds across industries also reveals stark gender segregation mirroring that of occupational groups. This highlights a structural divide in early labour market opportunities, reflecting persistent gendered assumptions about who does what type of work, most often funnelling young women into work typically associated with lower pay and status from an early age. There isn’t data available on which occupations and industries young mothers specifically are more likely to work in, but it is reasonable to assume that such data would show a similar picture.  

There is a lack of routinely collected data on the labour market participation of young mothers in Scotland. This includes widespread intersectional data gaps on young mothers who are disabled, racially minoritised, survivors of men’s violence, migrants and LGBT. Our research aims to offer a better understanding of the labour market experiences of young women and how these are shaped by motherhood. 

To build our evidence base, we conducted research into young mothers’ experiences of the Scottish labour market. This involved: 

1. A mapping of young mothers’ position in the Scottish labour market – seeking key characteristics of young mothers’ employment, such as occupational segregation and working patterns. 
2. A literature review of young mothers’ labour market experiences – reviewing policy, academic and grey literature to gather existing evidence. 
3. Qualitative research with low-income young mothers on their experiences – a diverse group of 32 young mothers from across Scotland were interviewed. 
4. An employer poll – responses from 181 Scottish employers from a range of sectors, organisational sizes, and job roles. 

Headline findings

The Fair Work for Young Mothers project involved invaluable research that provides a rich insight into the labour market experiences of young mothers, a group that is often overlooked and ignored. 

The full findings will be available in our research report, but here is a preview of some of our headline findings:   

• Young mothers remain considerably less likely to be in employment when compared to other mothers, even as their children grow up. 
• The interplay between childcare and paid work is critical – young mothers need suitable, affordable childcare. This is particularly true for those with disabled children and children with additional support needs. Young mothers also need fair work that provides flexibility without fear of reprisal. 
• Many young mothers are disabled or have disabled children, are carers for other household members, racially minoritised, care experienced, and survivors of male violence – these experiences impact their journeys with entering, sustaining and progressing in paid work. 
• Employer support for young mothers is conditional and uneven, and constrained by organisational size, entrenched stereotypes, and limited capacity for flexibility. 
• Some of our interview participants reported discriminatory attitudes and practices after disclosing their pregnancy to their employer. 
• All the young mothers we interviewed reported feeling stigmatised and judged for having children at a younger age. 

Despite navigating these challenges and more, the young mothers interviewed in our research expressed significant pride and ambition – they felt that becoming a mother at a younger age had developed their resilience, strength and determination in all areas of life. 

Policy failings, poor employer practice, and the persistence of occupational segregation have allowed young mothers and their families to remain at a disproportionate risk of experiencing poverty.

Full research report launch

We are delighted to be launching our full research report this autumn. 

The findings will be integral to this project’s second phase, which will focus on developing resources for employers, launching a campaign to raise young mothers’ awareness of their employment rights, and influencing policymakers to work towards big change that addresses systemic inequality. In particular, our recommendations will set out what must change so that young mothers can access, sustain, and progress in fair work.

Further information on the report launch and how you can attend will be shared soon. 

To keep up to date with news and updates, follow Close the Gap on LinkedIn and Bluesky.

Guest blog: Anti-racist practice in the third sector- what does real change demand of all of us?

Today we’re sharing a guest blog from Aneela McKenna and Dr Karla Perez Portilla, who worked with us to develop Close the Gap’s anti-racist practice strategy. Their insights and challenge have been central to shaping this work, and to pushing us to think more deeply about what meaningful, sustained organisational change requires.

Over the past year, we worked closely with Aneela and Karla to examine our policies and practice through an anti-racist lens. This included an external audit, all-staff training, and a series of workshops that created space for reflection, discomfort, and learning. Together, this process helped us move from commitment to action, and informed the development of our strategy. In this blog, they reflect on what an intersectional and anti-racist approach demands in practice, drawing on their experience of working with us and across the wider third sector.

Karla: I met Aneela in October 2004 when we began our MSc in Equality and Discrimination at the University of Strathclyde – over twenty years ago. We connected from the first day. We were young women from adversely racialised backgrounds, both driven to make a difference.

At the time, Aneela was the first Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Officer at the University of Glasgow, while I was a Chevening Scholar from Mexico, having just published my first book On the Principle of Equality. Since then, we have taken on many roles.

I have worked across academia, the public and third sectors on anti-racist and anti-discrimination projects, focusing on making anti-discrimination law more accessible and effective. Aneela has led equality programmes in the public sector and now runs her own consultancy, Mòr Diversity. After more than twenty years, we have come together again to support Close the Gap’s anti-racist work – a collaboration that has deepened our bond and shared commitment to meaningful change.

A collaborative reflection

This blog is a collaborative reflection structured around three questions. Karla leads on the first, Aneela on the second, and we address the third together.

1.What does the third sector need to do to take a genuinely intersectional and anti-racist approach?

Karla: A good starting point is to ask some honest and fundamental questions: why do we want to take this approach, and why now? Who are our services, goods, and employment structures designed for, by whom, and for what purpose? And who actually benefits from them in practice?

The question of why is crucial because it shapes motivation. When action is driven primarily by fashion, funding requirements, or political pressure, it is rarely sustainable. Meaningful change requires genuine compassion because fairness and dignity matter, not because we are being watched. As Fannie Lou Hamer reminded us, nobody is free until all of us are free.

Asking who our services really work for brings intersectionality into sharp focus. Deconstructing privilege is not about blame or punishment; it is about examining how resources, access, and advantage are distributed and whether they can be shared more equitably. A universal approach — treating everyone the same — may appear fair, but in practice it often is not. Offering everyone a seat at the table assumes the same chair works for all, when in reality, different people need different forms of support. Intersectionality helps us design systems that deliver substantive, not merely formal, equality.

I therefore suggest a three-part approach:

• first, clearly declare an intention to be anti-racist and intersectional;
• second, commit to specific, measurable changes; and
• third, sustain action over time. Fairness and inclusion are not end points but ongoing commitments that must be actively maintained.

Aneela: Karla is right: commitment must be sustainable. The third sector often follows funding and policy, but it cannot lose its active role in building an intersectional and anti-racist approach. Too often, communities are treated as homogenous groups. We must recognise the multiple identities people hold and ensure services truly meet their needs.

Gender equality work cannot advance without an anti-racist lens. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality emerged because feminist approaches that focused only on more privileged women erased the compounded oppression faced by adversely racialised women. This is a critical moment for the third sector to challenge the racist narratives embedded in everyday life through social media, political discourse, and our daily conversations. We need collective action and a unified voice that says racism is not welcome. Commitment alone is not enough; we need sustained action, intentional representation, and a long-term focus.

2.What are examples of good practice?

Aneela: There is no perfect model, but I look for good practice within specific workstreams. One thing organisations fear most is often the best way to becoming anti-racist: delivering programmes for adversely racialised groups or setting diversity targets. People say this takes opportunities away from others. But positive action (which is lawful, unlike positive discrimination) is a vital tool – proactive outreach, leadership programmes, bringing adversely racialised people into decision-making. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer once said, “talent is everywhere, opportunity is not.” Positive action helps close the ethnicity gap.

Second, nothing happens without data. When you take a proposal to a board, they need evidence that targeted action is necessary. Data collection should be ongoing from staff, volunteers, the communities you serve as well as those you are failing to reach. Data reveals the inequalities we’d rather not see, providing the hard evidence that makes the status quo indefensible and action unavoidable.

Finally, cultivate partnerships that challenge your institutional thinking and question your practices. Be honest about the model you’re using and what the expectations are; don’t define the relationship as something it isn’t. Be transparent about where the power sits, but also actively address how that power can be redistributed to adversely racialised communities. We cannot claim a process is collaborative if the structural ownership never actually shifts.

Karla: I fully agree on the importance of positive action: it is statistically and morally justified, legally permitted, and a crucial means of fulfilling the UK’s Public Sector Equality Duty. I would like to add a personal reflection. On one occasion, I was asked to identify countries doing anti-racist work ‘better’ than the UK, implying that, in the absence of clear examples, urgent action was unnecessary. This comparison is flawed. Inequality and discrimination are historically produced and deeply contextual. No other country shares the UK’s specific imperial history or has benefited in the same ways from colonial exploitation. The UK must therefore respond seriously to its own history and present realities.

3. So, what does real change demand of all of us?

Karla: Social inequality is not natural; it is made — and what is made can be unmade. We know change is working when it becomes uncomfortable. As I often tell my students, muscles grow because they burn during exercise. Real change is no different: it unsettles and disrupts the status quo. Organisations should therefore recognise discomfort not as failure, but as a sign of progress.

Aneela: Too often, this work is left to the one adversely racialised person on the team—that is not sustainable. Don’t leave them to carry the weight alone. Allocate resources, set strategic goals, and build firm accountability so that equity becomes everyone’s responsibility. Let it come from the board and leadership, not just from those with lived experience. We can all lead with an intersectional lens. True inclusion does not rest on the shoulders of one ‘champion’; it requires a unified movement to turn commitment into lasting change.