Time Off Work for IVF 2026: UK Employer Legal Guide

Time off work for IVF is one of the most commonly misunderstood areas of UK employment law. Employers are frequently told that there is “no legal right” to IVF leave, yet tribunal claims arising from the mishandling of IVF-related absences continue to increase. The risk does not arise because the law grants a specific entitlement to IVF leave, but because how employers respond to requests for time off during fertility treatment can expose them to discrimination, unfair treatment and reputational damage.

For HR teams and business owners, IVF sits at the intersection of several high-risk legal areas: sickness absence management, sex discrimination, pregnancy protection under the Equality Act 2010, confidentiality obligations and workforce wellbeing strategy. Decisions taken informally or inconsistently — particularly at the early stages of treatment — are often relied on later as evidence of discriminatory treatment, even where the employer believed they were acting within their rights.

What makes IVF especially challenging from a compliance perspective is that legal protection changes during the treatment process itself. An employee undergoing IVF does not have pregnancy protection at the outset, but that position changes sharply at embryo transfer. Employers who fail to understand where that legal line is drawn — or who treat IVF as a purely personal matter rather than a regulated workplace issue — are particularly exposed.

What this article is about

This article provides a compliance-grade employer guide to time off work for IVF in the UK. It explains whether employees are legally entitled to time off, how IVF appointments and related illness should be handled, when pregnancy and discrimination protection applies and what employers must decide to manage risk effectively. The focus throughout is on legal obligations, operational decision-making and the consequences of getting it wrong, rather than general wellbeing commentary.

Section A: Is there a legal right to time off work for IVF in the UK?

One of the first questions employers ask when an employee requests time off for IVF treatment is whether the law requires them to agree. The short answer is no — UK employment law does not provide a specific statutory right to time off work for IVF treatment. However, stopping at that point is where many employers expose themselves to avoidable legal and commercial risk.

There is no standalone entitlement under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Equality Act 2010 or the Working Time Regulations 1998 that obliges an employer to grant time off for IVF investigations, consultations or treatment. IVF appointments are not classified as antenatal appointments and, prior to embryo transfer, an employee undergoing IVF is not legally regarded as pregnant. As a result, the statutory pregnancy protections that apply during pregnancy and maternity do not automatically apply at the early stages of IVF.

That said, the absence of a statutory right does not give employers a free hand to refuse requests for time off without consequence. Employment law in this area operates indirectly. IVF-related absences intersect with wider legal duties around sex discrimination, sickness absence management, contractual terms and the implied duty of trust and confidence. Employers who rely solely on the phrase “there is no legal right” often underestimate how those wider duties operate in practice.

From a contractual perspective, whether an employee is entitled to time off for IVF will depend on the wording of their contract of employment and any relevant workplace policies. Some employers choose to classify IVF appointments as medical appointments, others require annual leave or unpaid leave and some operate specific fertility or IVF policies. Where contractual terms exist, they must be applied consistently. Inconsistent treatment of IVF-related requests compared to other medical appointments can create evidence of unfair or discriminatory treatment, even where no express entitlement exists.

From a discrimination perspective, refusing time off for IVF treatment can give rise to legal risk if the refusal disproportionately affects women. IVF treatment is inherently linked to sex, and a workplace rule or practice that restricts time off for IVF appointments may amount to indirect sex discrimination unless the employer can objectively justify the policy as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Employers often struggle to demonstrate that justification in practice, particularly where flexibility has been afforded for other medical or personal appointments.

There is also a practical enforcement risk. ACAS guidance encourages employers to treat IVF-related medical appointments in line with other medical appointments under the terms of the contract of employment and to consider flexible working arrangements during treatment. While ACAS guidance does not create legal obligations, tribunals routinely take it into account when assessing whether an employer has acted reasonably. Employers who adopt a rigid approach without documented justification may find that their decision-making is difficult to defend if challenged.

Section Summary

There is no statutory right to time off work for IVF in the UK. However, that legal starting point does not remove employer responsibility. Employers must decide how IVF-related absences will be treated in practice, ensure consistency with contractual and sickness policies and assess discrimination risk before refusing requests. Failure to do so can result in legal exposure that far outweighs the operational inconvenience of the time off itself. For related compliance context, employers should ensure their approach aligns with wider employee rights and workplace standards.

Section B: How should employers treat time off for IVF appointments?

Once it is clear that there is no statutory right to time off for IVF, the practical question for employers becomes how IVF appointments should be treated within existing absence and leave frameworks. This is where most compliance failures occur, not because employers refuse time off, but because they categorise and manage IVF-related absences inconsistently or without a defensible rationale.

In most organisations, IVF appointments are treated in one of three ways as a matter of employer practice: as medical appointments, as sickness absence, or as a form of annual or unpaid leave. Each approach carries different legal and operational consequences, and employers should be clear about which framework they are applying and why.

Where IVF appointments are treated as medical appointments, employers will usually rely on contractual terms governing medical or dental appointments. Some contracts allow paid time off, others require appointments to be taken in personal time or made up through flexible working. The key legal risk here is consistency. If employers routinely allow paid or flexible time off for other medical appointments but refuse similar flexibility for IVF, this differential treatment may be relied on as evidence of indirect sex discrimination.

Treating IVF appointments as sickness absence is more complex. Attendance at a scheduled IVF appointment is not, in itself, sickness. However, employees may be genuinely unfit for work due to side effects of treatment such as hormonal reactions, pain or severe fatigue. In those circumstances, sickness absence policies may legitimately apply. Employers must take care not to automatically classify all IVF-related absence as sickness, particularly where the employee is capable of working but requires time away for treatment. Overuse of sickness categorisation can artificially inflate absence records and increase the risk of discriminatory outcomes.

Requiring employees to use annual leave or unpaid leave for IVF appointments is lawful in principle, but again carries risk if applied inflexibly. Employers who mandate annual leave for IVF while allowing flexibility for other medical or personal matters may struggle to justify the distinction. This is particularly the case where appointments are short-notice or clinically immovable, as is often the case during IVF treatment.

ACAS guidance recommends that employers treat IVF-related medical appointments in line with other medical appointments under the terms of the contract of employment and consider flexible working arrangements during treatment. While this guidance is not legally binding, it sets an expected standard of employer behaviour. In tribunal proceedings, a failure to follow ACAS guidance without good reason can undermine an employer’s defence, particularly in discrimination cases.

From a commercial perspective, rigid approaches to IVF appointments often result in avoidable employee relations issues. IVF treatment is typically time-limited but intensive. Employers who take a view that every appointment must be offset with annual leave or unpaid leave may find that engagement, productivity and retention suffer, particularly among experienced or senior employees. These factors frequently form part of the wider context considered in disputes, even where the legal claim itself is narrow.

Section Summary

Employers are not required to create a special category of paid leave for IVF appointments, but they must decide how IVF-related time off fits within existing absence frameworks. Whatever approach is adopted must be applied consistently, justified objectively and documented clearly. Failure to do so increases the risk of indirect sex discrimination claims, employee relations issues and difficulty defending decisions if challenged. For practical support on related absence frameworks, see time off work and flexible working.

Section C: When does IVF trigger pregnancy and discrimination protection?

Understanding when IVF treatment triggers pregnancy-related legal protection is critical for employers, as the point at which protection begins is narrow, fixed and often misunderstood. Many discrimination claims arise not because employers intended to treat an employee unfairly, but because they misjudged when the Equality Act 2010 protections applied.

Under UK employment law, a woman undergoing IVF is legally regarded as pregnant only once fertilised eggs have been implanted into the uterus, known as the embryo transfer stage. This is the point at which pregnancy protection under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 begins. Prior to embryo transfer, the employee is not legally pregnant, and the specific protections that apply to pregnancy and maternity do not apply.

This distinction has significant practical consequences. Before embryo transfer, unfavourable treatment relating to time off for IVF cannot amount to pregnancy discrimination because the employee is not yet considered pregnant in law. However, that does not mean the employer is insulated from legal risk. Unfavourable treatment at this stage may still amount to sex discrimination if the employee can show that she was treated less favourably because of her sex or that a neutral policy placed women at a particular disadvantage.

Once embryo transfer has taken place, the legal position changes immediately. From that point, the employee is protected against unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness, regardless of whether the IVF treatment ultimately results in a successful pregnancy. Employers must not subject the employee to any detriment connected to pregnancy, including decisions relating to absence, performance management, redundancy selection or promotion.

If the IVF treatment is unsuccessful, the Equality Act provides that the protected period ends two weeks after the end of the pregnancy. In IVF cases, a pregnancy test is usually taken around two weeks after embryo transfer. If the test is negative, the protected period continues for a further two weeks. During this time, the employee remains protected from pregnancy discrimination and unfavourable treatment linked to the pregnancy.

Employers frequently expose themselves to risk by failing to adjust their approach at the point of embryo transfer. For example, continuing to apply standard sickness absence triggers, disciplining IVF-related absences, or refusing time off for pregnancy-related illness after implantation may amount to unlawful discrimination. The fact that an employer did not know IVF had progressed to embryo transfer may be relevant to remedies but does not remove liability if the employee had disclosed the information.

From an employer decision-making perspective, this creates a clear compliance obligation. HR teams must ensure that managers understand that IVF is not legally static. The legal framework shifts during treatment, and internal handling of absence, performance and conduct must shift with it.

Section Summary

IVF triggers pregnancy protection at embryo transfer, not before. From that point, employees are protected against unfavourable treatment under the Equality Act 2010, even if the IVF treatment later fails. Employers must identify this transition point and adjust their handling of time off, sickness absence and management decisions accordingly. Misjudging the timing of protection is one of the most common and costly errors in IVF-related disputes. For deeper guidance, see Equality Act 2010 and pregnancy discrimination.

Section D: How should IVF-related illness and sickness absence be handled?

IVF-related absence creates particular difficulty for employers because illness, treatment and pregnancy protection do not align neatly. The way sickness absence is recorded and managed during IVF is a common source of discrimination risk, especially where automated absence triggers or capability procedures are in place.

At the early stages of IVF, before embryo transfer, illness arising from fertility treatment is not classed as pregnancy-related illness. If an employee is genuinely unfit for work due to side effects such as pain, nausea, ovarian hyperstimulation or severe fatigue, that absence may lawfully be recorded under the employer’s sickness absence policy. However, employers must still apply that policy consistently and avoid treating IVF-related illness less favourably than comparable non-IVF medical conditions.

The legal position changes following embryo transfer. From that point onwards, any illness connected to the pregnancy, including illness arising from IVF treatment, is treated as pregnancy-related illness for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. Pregnancy-related sickness absence must be recorded separately from ordinary sickness absence and must be disregarded when making absence-based decisions that would disadvantage the employee, such as disciplinary action, redundancy selection, promotion or pay progression.

Employers often make mistakes by continuing to apply standard sickness absence triggers after embryo transfer, particularly where the pregnancy has not yet been confirmed or where IVF treatment ultimately fails. The law does not require a successful pregnancy for protection to apply. Once embryo transfer has occurred, the employee is treated as pregnant, and pregnancy-related illness must be managed accordingly until the protected period ends.

Another common error is assuming that pregnancy-related illness only covers conditions arising later in pregnancy. In fact, early pregnancy symptoms, including those linked to IVF, fall squarely within the scope of protection. Disciplining or warning an employee for pregnancy-related absence, even where absence levels would ordinarily justify action, is likely to be unlawful.

From a risk management perspective, employers should ensure that sickness absence systems allow for pregnancy-related illness to be flagged and excluded from automated triggers. Managers should also be trained to escalate IVF-related absence issues to HR rather than handling them informally. Failure to intervene early often results in procedural errors that are difficult to correct later.

It is also important to recognise the evidential position. Employers are entitled to request fit notes where appropriate, but must not subject pregnancy-related illness to more onerous scrutiny than other types of absence. Excessive questioning or scepticism about IVF-related illness can itself be relied on as evidence of unfavourable treatment.

Section Summary

Before embryo transfer, IVF-related illness may be treated as ordinary sickness absence, provided policies are applied consistently. After embryo transfer, illness connected to IVF must be treated as pregnancy-related illness and excluded from absence-based decision-making that would disadvantage the employee. Employers who fail to distinguish between these stages risk unlawful pregnancy discrimination and flawed absence management processes, including errors in capability procedures and disciplinary action.

Section E: Can refusing time off for IVF be unlawful?

Although there is no statutory right to time off work for IVF, refusing time off can still be unlawful in certain circumstances. This is one of the most counter-intuitive aspects of IVF-related employment risk and a frequent source of employer surprise when disputes escalate.

The primary legal risk does not arise from breach of a leave entitlement, but from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Employers who refuse time off for IVF must be able to explain and justify that decision within the framework of sex discrimination law, particularly where refusal forms part of a wider pattern of treatment.

Direct sex discrimination may arise where an employee is treated less favourably because she is undergoing IVF treatment and a male comparator would not have been treated in the same way. This risk is highly fact-specific, but can arise where managers express hostility towards IVF treatment, question its legitimacy, or single out IVF-related absences for criticism or sanction. In such cases, the absence of a statutory right to leave is irrelevant.

More commonly, refusal of time off gives rise to indirect sex discrimination. This occurs where an employer applies a provision, criterion or practice — for example, a rule requiring all medical appointments to be taken as annual leave or outside working hours — that places women at a particular disadvantage. Because IVF treatment is intrinsically linked to female reproductive biology, such policies are more likely to impact women. To defend such a claim, the employer must show that the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In practice, employers often struggle to demonstrate proportionality where alternative, less discriminatory options were available.

Refusal decisions are also scrutinised in context. Tribunals will consider whether the employer has shown flexibility in comparable situations, how short-notice or clinically immovable the appointments were, and whether operational reasons for refusal were genuine and evidenced. A refusal that appears arbitrary or dismissive is far more likely to be viewed as discriminatory than one supported by clear business justification and consistent practice.

Once IVF has reached the embryo transfer stage, refusal of time off connected to pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness carries significantly higher risk. At that point, unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy is unlawful and employers do not have a justification defence. Refusing time off for pregnancy-related illness or penalising absence following implantation may amount to automatic pregnancy discrimination, regardless of business impact.

Employers should also be aware that refusal of time off can contribute to claims beyond discrimination. Where the handling of IVF requests damages trust and confidence, employees may allege constructive dismissal, particularly if refusal forms part of a broader pattern of inflexible or unsympathetic treatment. Even where such claims ultimately fail, the cost, management time and reputational impact of defending employment tribunal claims can be significant.

Section Summary

Refusing time off for IVF is not automatically unlawful, but it is legally risky. Employers must assess whether refusal could amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination and must be especially cautious once pregnancy protection applies. Decisions should be justified, documented and consistent with wider practice. A rigid reliance on the absence of a statutory right is rarely a sufficient defence and may increase exposure to claims of discrimination at work and unfair dismissal.

Section F: What should a compliant IVF leave policy include?

While employers are not legally required to operate a specific IVF or fertility leave policy, the absence of a clear framework is one of the most common reasons IVF-related issues escalate into formal disputes. From a compliance perspective, an IVF policy is less about creating new rights and more about controlling discretion, ensuring consistency and evidencing lawful decision-making.

A compliant IVF policy should first clarify how time off for IVF appointments will be treated. This includes whether appointments will be classified as medical appointments, sickness absence, annual leave, unpaid leave or a combination of these. The policy should make clear that there is no automatic entitlement to paid IVF leave, while also setting out the circumstances in which flexibility may be considered. Ambiguity in this area increases the risk that managers make inconsistent decisions, which can later be relied on as evidence of discrimination.

Confidentiality should be addressed explicitly. IVF is highly personal medical information, and employers must ensure that disclosures are handled sensitively and shared only on a need-to-know basis. A policy should identify who employees can speak to in confidence, typically HR or a nominated senior manager, and how information will be recorded. Mishandling confidentiality can itself give rise to grievances and undermine trust and confidence.

The policy should also explain how sickness absence linked to IVF will be managed. This is particularly important given the legal distinction between illness occurring before and after embryo transfer. Employers should make clear that pregnancy-related illness following embryo transfer will be recorded separately and excluded from absence-based decision-making, in line with Equality Act requirements. This clarity helps protect both employees and managers from inadvertent legal breaches.

Flexibility is another key component, but it should be framed carefully. Employers may choose to offer flexible working arrangements during IVF treatment, such as temporary adjustments to hours or remote working. These measures are discretionary, not legally mandated, and the policy should state this clearly. Presenting flexibility as a managed option rather than an entitlement allows employers to balance operational needs with employee support while retaining control over decision-making.

Finally, a compliant policy should be supported by manager guidance. Managers should be trained on how to handle IVF-related requests, when to escalate matters to HR, and how legal protection changes during the IVF process. Policies that exist only on paper, without supporting training, provide little protection when disputes arise.

Section Summary

An IVF leave policy is a practical risk management tool. It should set clear expectations on time off, confidentiality, sickness absence and flexibility, while preserving employer discretion. Clear policies reduce inconsistency, limit discrimination risk and provide a defensible framework for handling sensitive requests. Employers may wish to align any policy with broader HR policies and the employee handbook to avoid gaps or conflicting rules.

Section G: Practical steps for employers managing IVF requests

Even where employers understand the legal framework, disputes often arise because IVF requests are handled informally or inconsistently at line-manager level. A compliant approach requires structure, escalation and documentation, particularly given how quickly legal protection can change during IVF treatment.

The first step is ensuring that managers know when to escalate IVF-related issues to HR. Line managers should not be expected to make judgement calls about discrimination risk, pregnancy protection or sickness categorisation in isolation. Where an employee discloses that they are undergoing IVF, managers should be trained to treat this as a trigger for HR involvement rather than a purely operational matter. Early escalation allows employers to identify whether embryo transfer has occurred and adjust handling accordingly.

Employers should also standardise how IVF-related absences are recorded. This includes distinguishing between time off for appointments, sickness absence due to treatment side effects, and pregnancy-related illness following embryo transfer. Clear recording reduces the risk of automated absence triggers being applied unlawfully and provides an audit trail if decisions are later challenged.

Communication is another critical risk area. Employers should avoid language that minimises IVF as a lifestyle choice or treats it as optional or elective in nature. Even where time off is discretionary, the tone used in correspondence and meetings can be relied on as evidence of unfavourable treatment. Written communications should focus on policy application and operational considerations rather than personal judgement about the treatment itself.

Employers should also consider how IVF requests interact with other processes, such as performance management, redundancy selection or restructuring. Decisions taken close in time to IVF-related disclosures are more likely to be scrutinised. HR should review proposed actions involving employees undergoing IVF to ensure that decisions are objectively justified and supported by evidence unrelated to the treatment.

Finally, employers should ensure that decision-making is documented. Where time off is refused, the reasons should be recorded clearly, including the operational rationale and any alternatives considered. Documentation is often the difference between a defensible decision and one that appears arbitrary or discriminatory in hindsight.

Section Summary

Managing IVF requests lawfully requires more than knowing there is no statutory right to leave. Employers must ensure managers escalate issues appropriately, apply policies consistently, record absences accurately and document decisions. A structured approach reduces legal risk and supports defensible, proportionate decision-making as part of wider HR compliance.

Time Off Work for IVF FAQs

1. Do employees have a legal right to time off work for IVF in the UK?

No. There is no statutory right under UK employment law to time off work specifically for IVF investigations or treatment. IVF appointments are not classed as antenatal appointments, and entitlement to time off depends on contractual terms and employer policy. However, refusing time off without considering discrimination risk can still expose employers to legal claims.

2. Is time off for IVF paid or unpaid?

There is no automatic right to paid time off for IVF. Whether time off is paid depends on the employee’s contract of employment and any relevant workplace policies. Employers may choose to offer paid leave, require annual leave, allow unpaid leave, or offer flexible working arrangements. Whatever approach is adopted must be applied consistently to avoid discrimination risk.

3. Can IVF appointments be treated as sickness absence?

Attendance at IVF appointments is not sickness in itself. However, if an employee is unfit for work due to side effects of IVF treatment, that absence may be treated as sickness in line with the employer’s sickness absence policy. Employers should avoid automatically categorising all IVF-related absence as sickness, as this can create unfair outcomes.

4. When does pregnancy protection start during IVF?

Pregnancy protection under the Equality Act 2010 starts at the point of embryo transfer, when fertilised eggs are implanted into the uterus. From that point onwards, the employee is legally treated as pregnant, even if the IVF treatment later fails. Before embryo transfer, pregnancy discrimination protection does not apply, although sex discrimination risk may still arise.

5. How should sickness absence be handled after embryo transfer?

After embryo transfer, any illness connected to the pregnancy, including illness arising from IVF treatment, must be treated as pregnancy-related sickness. Pregnancy-related sickness absence must be recorded separately and excluded from absence-based decisions that would disadvantage the employee, such as disciplinary action, redundancy selection, promotion or pay progression.

6. Can an employer refuse time off for IVF treatment?

An employer can lawfully refuse time off for IVF treatment in principle, as there is no statutory entitlement. However, refusal may be unlawful if it amounts to direct or indirect sex discrimination, or if it constitutes unfavourable treatment once pregnancy protection applies. Employers should assess the risk carefully and document the reasons for refusal. Prior to embryo transfer, there is no general legal test of “reasonableness” for refusing IVF time off, but the reason for refusal and how consistently the employer applies its approach can still create discrimination risk.

7. Does IVF qualify an employee for maternity leave?

IVF treatment itself does not trigger maternity leave rights. Maternity leave entitlement arises only if the employee becomes pregnant and meets the qualifying conditions. If IVF is unsuccessful, maternity leave does not apply, although pregnancy discrimination protection may continue for a limited period after embryo transfer.

8. Is an employee required to tell their employer they are undergoing IVF?

No. An employee is not legally required to disclose IVF treatment. However, disclosure may enable employers to apply the correct legal framework, particularly seen as legal protection changes at embryo transfer. Employers should ensure any disclosure is handled confidentially and sensitively.

9. Should employers have a specific IVF or fertility policy?

There is no legal requirement to have an IVF or fertility policy. However, many employers choose to introduce one to reduce inconsistency, manage discretion and demonstrate compliance with discrimination law. A clear policy can help employers manage IVF-related requests in a defensible and structured way.

Conclusion

Time off work for IVF sits in a legally sensitive space where the absence of a statutory entitlement does not equate to the absence of risk. UK employment law does not require employers to grant paid or unpaid leave for IVF treatment, but the way IVF-related requests are handled can engage discrimination law, sickness absence obligations and broader duties of trust and confidence.

For employers, the primary compliance challenge is not whether to allow time off, but how decisions are made, recorded and justified. IVF treatment progresses through distinct legal stages, and protection under the Equality Act 2010 changes at embryo transfer. Employers who fail to recognise that transition, or who continue to apply ordinary absence or performance frameworks without adjustment, are particularly exposed to pregnancy discrimination claims.

Rigid or inconsistent approaches to IVF appointments and illness frequently give rise to indirect sex discrimination risk, especially where flexibility is offered for other medical needs. Conversely, employers who introduce clear policies, train managers appropriately and escalate IVF-related issues to HR are far better placed to defend their decisions if challenged.

Ultimately, time off for IVF should be treated as a compliance and risk management issue, not simply a wellbeing initiative. Employers who understand the legal framework, apply it consistently and document their reasoning can support employees effectively while protecting the organisation from avoidable disputes, tribunal claims and reputational damage.

For wider context and aligned guidance, see the DavidsonMorris employment law hub.

Glossary

Useful Links