UK Overseas Assignment Legal Risks 2026

International assignments remain central to global growth strategies, talent development and market expansion. However, sending employees to work in jurisdictions with restrictive laws, entrenched discrimination or cultural hostility towards certain groups carries significant legal and operational risk for UK employers. Diversity considerations in these environments are not simply a matter of corporate values; they are a compliance issue engaging wider UK employment law, duty of care obligations and, in some cases, immigration and sponsor compliance under UKVI oversight (see UKVI).

Employers must strike a careful balance. On the one hand, excluding individuals from opportunities because of protected characteristics may amount to unlawful discrimination. On the other, knowingly placing an employee in a location where they face foreseeable harm may expose the organisation to negligence claims and reputational damage. Poorly handled decisions in either direction can result in tribunal litigation, employee relations fallout and long-term commercial impact.

What this article is about: This guide provides UK employers with a structured, compliance-first framework for managing overseas assignments in high-risk or culturally restrictive locations. It explains the employer’s duty of care, how discrimination rules apply to assignment decisions, when discrimination risk becomes a legal barrier to mobility, how employee refusals should be handled, and how immigration and sponsor compliance intersect with global mobility governance. The aim is to help employers build defensible, inclusive and legally sound assignment policies as part of a broader global mobility compliance approach, including practical considerations for corporate relocation and international assignment planning. For wider immigration context, see UK immigration. For related cross-border mobility insights, see NNU Immigration – US immigration.

Section A: Employer Duty of Care in Overseas Assignments

Overseas assignments are often viewed primarily through a commercial lens: market expansion, leadership development or operational need. Legally, however, they trigger a distinct layer of employer responsibility. UK employers do not shed their duty of care simply because an employee is working abroad. Where the employment relationship retains a strong connection to Great Britain, employers should assume UK standards of reasonable care will be used to assess whether they acted properly, even where the day-to-day work is performed overseas.

The core principle is not absolute protection, but reasonable foreseeability and proportionate mitigation.

1. What is the employer’s duty of care abroad?

Under common law, employers owe a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. This includes providing a safe system of work, conducting appropriate risk assessments and taking reasonable steps to mitigate foreseeable harm.

Health and safety legislation will not always apply extraterritorially to every overseas posting. However, the expectations it embeds around risk assessment, safe systems of work and competent supervision are highly relevant to how “reasonable steps” are judged in practice. In addition, employers should factor in implied contractual duties, including the requirement to act in a way that does not undermine trust and confidence.

In practical terms, this means employers should assess political stability, crime levels, legal restrictions affecting employees, cultural hostility towards particular groups and access to medical services. The legal test is not whether harm was avoided, but whether reasonable steps were taken to assess and manage risk based on what was known, or should reasonably have been known.

2. Foreseeable risk and high-risk jurisdictions

Foreseeability is central. If credible evidence indicates that a particular group faces legal penalties, systemic harassment or violence in a destination country, an employer cannot ignore that information.

Examples may include jurisdictions where same-sex relationships are criminalised, countries with strict gender restrictions, locations where religious minorities face state or societal hostility or states with documented systemic racial discrimination.

In such cases, sending an employee without structured assessment and documented mitigation increases negligence exposure. However, employers must avoid acting on stereotypes or generalised assumptions. Decisions should be evidence-based, drawing on reliable sources such as government travel advisories, local legal briefings and in-country HR intelligence.

3. Risk assessment and documentation standards

A legally defensible overseas assignment process should include:

• a formal written risk assessment
• clear identification of objective risks
• consultation with the employee
• consideration of mitigation measures
• documentation of decision-making rationale

Risk assessments should not be generic. They should consider the individual’s circumstances, including family composition, but must do so carefully to avoid discriminatory assumptions. Documentation is critical. In tribunal proceedings, the employer’s paper trail often determines whether a decision appears reasoned and proportionate, or arbitrary and biased.

A structured approach to duty of care should also connect into wider workplace standards, including the employer’s approach to duty of care management in complex risk environments.

Section A Summary: UK employers owe a continuing duty of care when sending employees abroad. The legal standard is one of reasonable care based on foreseeable risk, assessed against the circumstances and the strength of the assignment’s connection to Great Britain. High-risk jurisdictions require structured, evidence-based assessment and careful documentation. Employers should avoid both complacency and overreaction. The objective is not to eliminate all risk, but to ensure that assignment decisions are legally defensible and proportionate.
 

Section B: Equality Act 2010 & Assignment Decisions

While risk management is essential, overseas assignment decisions must also comply with the Equality Act 2010. Employers who attempt to protect individuals from potential harm abroad can inadvertently expose themselves to discrimination claims if decisions are based on protected characteristics rather than objective risk.

The central compliance challenge is this: how to address genuine safety concerns in certain jurisdictions without unlawfully excluding employees from career opportunities.

1. Protected characteristics and overseas postings

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination because of protected characteristics including age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race (including nationality and ethnic origin), religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

These protections apply to recruitment, promotion, training and access to opportunities. Overseas assignments typically fall within the terms of employment and access to career opportunities, meaning decisions around selection, withdrawal or conditionality can engage Equality Act risk. In addition, the territorial reach of UK employment protections is fact-sensitive. Employers should assume that UK discrimination duties can apply to overseas postings where there is a sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain, rather than treating “overseas” as a compliance carve-out.

Refusing to send an employee abroad because they are, for example, female, gay, of a particular ethnicity or unmarried could amount to direct discrimination. Direct discrimination cannot be justified in most cases. The main statutory exception is age discrimination, which can be lawful if it is objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (see age discrimination).

2. The risk of paternalistic exclusion

A common compliance mistake is “protective discrimination”. For example, deciding not to offer an assignment to someone because it “may be difficult culturally” for women, or avoiding a posting because an employee’s personal characteristics might attract hostility.

Even if motivated by concern, these decisions may constitute direct discrimination. Employers should avoid blanket policies that exclude categories of employees from certain regions. Such policies are highly vulnerable to challenge and can also trigger complaints of broader discrimination at work.

A legally safer approach is to:

• offer the opportunity on equal terms
• provide full disclosure of credible, evidence-based risks
• conduct an individual risk assessment
• consult with the employee in a structured way
• allow the employee to make an informed decision, supported by appropriate safeguards

This approach reduces the risk of unlawful exclusion while still allowing the employer to meet duty of care obligations through evidence-led decision-making.

3. Objective justification and legitimate risk management

In many overseas assignment scenarios, the legal risk does not arise from a single explicit decision (“we will not send you”), but from the interaction of policy and practice. For example, applying a “hardship destination policy” that disproportionately disadvantages certain groups could amount to indirect discrimination unless it can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Where local law creates objective barriers, employers should distinguish between:

• subjective discomfort or reputational anxiety, which is rarely an adequate basis for restriction
• objective legal or safety risks, supported by credible evidence, which may justify specific safeguards or alternative assignment structures

If an employee raises discrimination concerns and is treated unfavourably as a result, separate liability can arise through victimisation, even if the underlying discrimination complaint is not upheld.

Section B Summary: The Equality Act 2010 can apply to overseas assignment decisions where there is a sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain. Employers must not exclude employees from opportunities because of protected characteristics, even if motivated by concern. Protective or paternalistic exclusion can amount to unlawful direct discrimination. The correct approach is structured risk assessment, transparency and individual consultation. Where objective legal barriers exist abroad, decisions must be evidence-based and proportionate, with careful attention to both direct and indirect discrimination risk.

Section C: High-Risk Jurisdictions & Diversity Exposure

When managing global mobility, employers must distinguish between discomfort and danger. Not every culturally restrictive environment creates a legal barrier to assignment. However, some jurisdictions present objective risks that go beyond social unease and enter the realm of criminal liability, systemic discrimination or state-sanctioned hostility.

The legal and governance challenge is to identify when diversity considerations become a material compliance issue rather than a subjective concern.

1. Criminalisation and legal exposure abroad

Certain jurisdictions criminalise conduct or statuses that are protected characteristics under UK law. Examples may include criminal penalties for same-sex relationships, restrictions affecting unmarried couples, severe limitations on gender expression or constraints on religious practice.

Where such risks exist, the employer must assess whether harm is reasonably foreseeable and whether reasonable mitigation steps are available. Liability is not automatic. Negligence exposure would depend on whether the employer failed to carry out a proportionate assessment, ignored credible evidence or proceeded despite clear and avoidable danger.

If an employer knowingly sends an employee into a jurisdiction where they face a real risk of prosecution, detention or systemic harassment without structured assessment and mitigation, this may expose the organisation to claims and reputational damage. The key question is whether the employer acted reasonably in light of what it knew or ought reasonably to have known.

Employers should also consider whether discrimination or harassment abroad could interact with wider risks such as workplace harassment or bullying at work where UK management retains oversight or control.

2. Family member exposure and indirect impact

Global mobility risk does not stop with the employee. Spouses, partners and children may also face discrimination or legal exposure.

Examples include refusal to recognise unmarried partners for visa purposes, restrictions on dependent visas for same-sex spouses, cultural hostility towards interracial families or limited access to education and healthcare for certain groups.

If family members cannot lawfully reside, access services or live safely in the host country, the assignment may become unworkable. Employers should therefore consider:

• immigration status for dependants
• legal recognition of marital or partnership status
• schooling and healthcare access
• secure housing arrangements

Failure to assess family exposure can increase the risk of early repatriation, employee relations disputes and allegations that the employer failed to take foreseeable hardship into account.

3. Insurance, liability and reputational exposure

Insurance providers may impose exclusions or enhanced conditions for assignments in high-risk jurisdictions. Failure to disclose known risks may invalidate cover. Employers should check whether diversity-related risk factors affect personal accident, health or evacuation insurance.

Reputational exposure may arise if a discrimination incident abroad becomes public and it appears that the employer failed to conduct due diligence. Social media, advocacy groups and internal reporting channels can amplify such incidents quickly.

A defensible position requires evidence that the organisation:

• assessed risks objectively
• consulted the employee transparently
• considered mitigation or alternative assignment models
• documented its reasoning

Where the risk stems from formal government policy or criminal law rather than isolated prejudice, escalation to senior management and legal counsel is advisable before the assignment proceeds.

Section C Summary: High-risk jurisdictions require careful distinction between subjective discomfort and objective legal danger. Criminalisation, systemic discrimination and family exposure elevate diversity considerations into a material compliance issue. Employers must conduct structured, documented assessments and evaluate insurance and reputational implications. In some cases, the risk may be so significant that proceeding with the assignment would be unreasonable. The test remains one of reasonable and proportionate action based on credible evidence.

Section D: Employee Refusal & Detriment Risks

Even where a strong commercial case exists for an overseas posting, employees may raise concerns about safety, discrimination or family impact. How an employer responds to those concerns can carry greater legal risk than the original assignment decision itself.

The central issue is detriment. If an employee refuses an assignment on legitimate grounds and is subsequently penalised, the employer may face claims under employment or equality legislation.

1. Contractual mobility clauses

Some employment contracts contain a mobility clause allowing the employer to require relocation, including internationally. The enforceability of such clauses depends on their wording and how they are exercised in practice.

UK courts interpret mobility clauses narrowly. Even where a clause permits international relocation, it must be exercised reasonably, in good faith and with proper notice. The employer must also avoid breaching the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

Requiring an employee to relocate to a high-risk jurisdiction without meaningful consultation or proportionate risk assessment may give rise to claims. In serious cases, this could contribute to allegations of constructive dismissal, though this would depend on whether there has been a fundamental breach of contract and whether the employee resigns in response.

Mobility clauses do not override statutory protections. They must be read alongside equality, health and safety and whistleblowing duties.

2. Health and safety protections

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, employees are protected from detriment or dismissal if they leave or refuse to return to a workplace where they reasonably believe there is serious and imminent danger.

While traditionally applied to domestic workplace risks, this protection may be relevant where an overseas assignment presents credible threats to safety. Whether the protection applies in a particular case will depend on the strength of the connection to Great Britain and the specific facts.

If an employee reasonably believes that they face legal jeopardy, credible threats of violence or serious discrimination linked to a posting, penalising them without proper investigation may increase legal exposure. The test is reasonableness of belief, not proof that harm was inevitable.

3. Whistleblowing and victimisation risks

If an employee raises concerns about systemic discrimination, safety failures or non-compliance linked to an overseas assignment, those concerns may amount to a protected disclosure. Employers should ensure they have a robust whistleblowing policy and understand the scope of protected disclosure protections.

Subjecting an employee to detriment because they raised genuine compliance concerns can lead to uncapped compensation claims. Separately, if an employee alleges discrimination and is treated unfavourably as a result, this may constitute victimisation under equality law.

To reduce risk, employers should:

• provide neutral escalation channels
• separate risk reporting from performance management
• document responses to concerns carefully
• ensure decisions are based on evidence rather than frustration or commercial pressure

Section D Summary: Employees who refuse overseas assignments because of safety or discrimination concerns may be legally protected from detriment. Mobility clauses must be exercised reasonably and cannot displace statutory rights. Mishandling refusal or risk escalation can lead to constructive dismissal, whistleblowing and victimisation claims. A compliant mobility framework requires safe reporting mechanisms and proportionate, documented decision-making.

Section E: Immigration & Sponsor Compliance in Overseas Assignments

Overseas assignments can create immigration compliance risks that are frequently overlooked in mobility planning. For UK employers holding a sponsor licence, or employing individuals with time-limited immigration permission, global mobility decisions may trigger reporting duties, salary compliance checks and genuineness assessments under Home Office guidance.

Immigration compliance should therefore be integrated into the same structured risk assessment process as equality and duty of care analysis.

1. Sponsored workers and overseas secondments

If an employee holds a Skilled Worker visa or another sponsored status, the employer must consider its sponsor licence obligations. These duties arise from the Home Office sponsor guidance and are managed via the Sponsor Management System (see SMS login for sponsor access guidance).

Key issues include:

• whether the overseas posting amounts to a change in main work location
• whether the core role remains consistent with the Certificate of Sponsorship
• whether salary continues to meet the relevant UK threshold
• whether the role continues to satisfy the genuineness requirement

Short-term overseas travel or secondment may be permissible where the employment relationship remains centred in the UK and the sponsored role continues to exist. However, long-term relocation or substantive changes in duties may trigger reporting obligations or raise questions about whether sponsorship remains appropriate.

Failure to report relevant changes, or allowing the sponsored role effectively to move offshore without proper assessment, can expose the employer to compliance action. Sponsors should ensure their wider processes for sponsor licence management are aligned with mobility governance.

2. Right to work status and continuity

Employers must also ensure that overseas assignments do not disrupt right to work compliance on return to the UK. Where a worker holds time-limited permission, expiry dates must continue to be monitored even while the individual is abroad.

Risk areas include:

• visa expiry during overseas posting
• failure to diarise follow-up checks
• changes in immigration status while outside the UK

On return, employers must ensure that appropriate right to work checks are in place and that any reporting obligations have been met. Failure to maintain compliant processes can result in civil penalties and reputational damage.

3. Cross-border regulatory and host country immigration exposure

In addition to UK sponsor compliance, employers must consider host country immigration rules. Short-term business travel without appropriate authorisation may breach local law. Work permits, residence permissions and dependent visas must be assessed before deployment.

Extended overseas presence may also create tax and permanent establishment risks. While these fall outside strict immigration law, they often interact with mobility planning and should be considered as part of a coordinated compliance framework.

Section E Summary: Overseas assignments can trigger UK sponsor reporting duties, salary and genuineness checks and right to work risks. Sponsored workers require particular scrutiny to ensure compliance with Home Office guidance. Host country immigration requirements must also be reviewed before deployment. A robust mobility framework integrates immigration compliance alongside equality and duty of care assessment to avoid regulatory exposure.

Section F: Building a Legally Defensible Global Mobility Framework

Managing diversity exposure in high-risk jurisdictions cannot rely on informal judgement or ad hoc commercial decision-making. To withstand tribunal scrutiny, sponsor compliance audits or regulatory investigation, employers must demonstrate that overseas assignment decisions follow a structured, consistent and evidence-based framework.

A defensible mobility system integrates duty of care, equality compliance and immigration governance into one coherent process.

1. Formalised risk assessment methodology

A compliant framework should include a tiered assessment model distinguishing between low-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk or legally restrictive jurisdictions.

Assessment criteria may include:

• criminalisation of conduct linked to protected characteristics
• documented systemic discrimination
• political instability and security threats
• government travel advisories
• access to emergency medical care
• host country immigration barriers affecting dependants

Where employers collect diversity-related information for risk assessment purposes, this may constitute special category data under UK GDPR. Processing such data requires a lawful basis and an appropriate Article 9 condition, together with clear safeguards and transparency.

The framework should avoid blanket exclusion policies. Instead, it should require individual consultation and documented consideration of mitigation measures, such as enhanced insurance cover, secure housing arrangements, legal briefings or alternative assignment structures including commuter or rotational models.

The objective is to evidence proportionate decision-making, not to eliminate all uncertainty.

2. Documentation, audit trails and governance oversight

In employment tribunal proceedings, documentation often determines outcome. Employers should ensure that:

• risk assessments are written and retained
• equality considerations are explicitly recorded
• immigration checks are logged
• employee consultation is documented
• final decisions are reasoned and signed off

Where assignments involve heightened legal exposure, escalation to senior HR, legal teams or risk committees is advisable. Governance oversight reduces the risk of inconsistent treatment between employees and strengthens defence against allegations of bias or arbitrariness.

3. Inclusive yet compliant policy design

An effective mobility policy should affirm equal access to opportunities while acknowledging that certain destinations require enhanced safeguards.

Policies should:

• avoid exclusionary language
• clarify that decisions will be evidence-based
• provide confidential mechanisms for raising concerns
• state that refusal based on legitimate safety concerns will be assessed proportionately
• set out clear decision-making pathways and escalation routes

Training for HR and line managers is critical. Many discrimination risks arise not from formal policy, but from informal assumptions or poorly framed communications. Employers should also be aware that positive action measures under the Equality Act are limited and cannot justify excluding individuals from opportunities.

Section F Summary: A legally defensible global mobility framework requires formal risk assessment, careful documentation and integrated governance oversight. Diversity considerations in high-risk jurisdictions must be addressed through structured, evidence-based processes rather than informal judgement. When equality, safety and immigration compliance are embedded into a single framework, employers can manage international assignments responsibly while reducing litigation and regulatory exposure.

FAQs

Can we refuse to send an employee to a high-risk country?

Possibly, but only where the decision is evidence-based and proportionate. Employers must distinguish between objective legal or safety risks and assumptions about a protected characteristic. Blanket exclusion policies are likely to amount to direct discrimination. A structured risk assessment and documented consultation process are essential before refusing an assignment.

Can an employee refuse an overseas assignment?

It depends on the employment contract and the circumstances. Even where a mobility clause exists, it must be exercised reasonably. Employees may be protected from detriment if they reasonably believe the assignment presents serious and imminent danger, or if they raise discrimination or compliance concerns. Penalising refusal without careful review increases legal risk.

Does the Equality Act 2010 apply to overseas assignments?

It can apply where there is a sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain. Employers should assume that discrimination duties may extend to assignment decisions linked to UK employment, even if the work is performed abroad.

What if local law criminalises sexual orientation or other protected characteristics?

This creates a significant compliance issue. Employers must assess whether the risk is foreseeable, serious and capable of mitigation. In extreme cases, proceeding with the assignment may be unreasonable. However, automatically excluding the employee without consultation may also create discrimination risk. Legal advice is advisable in such scenarios.

Are we liable if discrimination happens abroad?

Employers are not automatically liable for all incidents occurring overseas. Liability will depend on foreseeability, the steps taken to mitigate risk and the strength of the connection to UK employment. Documentation and evidence of reasonable assessment are critical.

What immigration issues arise during overseas assignments?

Sponsored workers may trigger reporting obligations, salary compliance checks and genuineness assessments under sponsor guidance. Employers must also monitor visa expiry dates and ensure right to work compliance on return to the UK, while checking host country work authorisation requirements.

Conclusion

Managing overseas assignments in high-risk or culturally restrictive jurisdictions requires careful balance. UK employers must comply with discrimination law while also fulfilling their duty of care and immigration obligations. Protective instincts alone are not sufficient. Decisions must be structured, evidence-based and proportionate.

A defensible global mobility framework integrates equality compliance, safety risk assessment and immigration review into a single governance process. When employers document their reasoning, consult transparently and avoid discriminatory assumptions, they can manage diversity exposure responsibly without creating additional legal risk.

Glossary

Useful Links