The Court of Appeal has handed down its landmark judgment in Higgs v Farmorâs School [2025] regarding the expression of protected beliefs in the workplace.
Background
Mrs Higgs (âthe Claimantâ) was a Christian pastoral administrator and work experience manager at a secondary school. She re-posted several posts on Facebook that criticised sex/relationship education in primary schools and opposed transgender identity. These are âprotected beliefsâ under the Equality Act 2010 (âthe Protected Beliefsâ).
A parent complained to the Head Teacher that the re-posts were homophobic and transphobic, which led to the Claimant being dismissed for gross misconduct. She tried to appeal the decision internally, but this was rejected and so she made a claim in the Employment Tribunal (âETâ) for direct discrimination because of her Protected Beliefs. This was dismissed by the ET and so she appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (âEATâ), where the appeal was allowed on the basis that the ET had not fully considered (i) whether the schoolâs actions were because of her beliefs and (ii) whether the dismissal was objectively proportionate. The Claimantâs rights to freedom of belief and expression should also be considered.
The case was sent back to the ET for re-hearing, which the Claimant appealed against to the Court of Appeal on the basis that âthe EAT was bound in law to reach its own conclusion and allow the Claimantâs claim for direct discriminationâ.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the dismissal amounted to direct discrimination because of the Claimantâs Protected Beliefs. It clarified that dismissing an employee merely because they had expressed a religious or other protected belief that the employer (or another third party whom it wishes to protect its reputation with, in this case other parents) objected to is unlawful.
Court of Appealâs Considerations
The school had argued that the re-posts would damage the schoolâs reputation, especially as there were concerns that the vulnerable students that the Claimant worked with could be particularly impacted.
However, the Claimant had re-posted under her maiden name and she did not hold her views to be connected to those of the school. She had been working at the school for a considerable length of time and had not repeated such beliefs at work. The Court of Appeal distinguished between actual damage and perceived risk to reputation by the school, noting that she could be identified only by one person at the time of the hearing.
In particular, the language was highlighted as being provocative with phrases such as ââchild abuseâ âdelusional thinkingâ âpsychoticâ and âmental illnessâ being used. It was noted, though, that the Claimant had stated to the school that she did not agree with the wording used, although did agree with the content. The offensive language was in the re-posted content and was not written by her. Additionally, the posts were not intended to incite hatred of gay or transgender people.
The decision to dismiss her was not objectively proportionate. She had an otherwise positive performance record and there had been no evidence to show these beliefs were communicated to the children she worked with, or that they impacted her treatment of the students.
Key Takeaways
- Dismissing an employee simply for expressing a protected belief is likely to be discriminatory
- Comprehensive investigation should be undertaken in response to a complaint to assess the actual reputational damage to the employer
- Training should be delivered to ensure disciplinary procedures are complied with correctly and proportionately
- Employers should have clear policies, including a social media use policy, so that employees understand how to appropriately balance their right to freedom of speech with acceptable behaviour in the workplace
