Polski Dzial A landmark Court of Appeal ruling has reinforced employee rights and employer responsibilities regarding the expression of personal and religious beliefs in the workplace.
On 12th February 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down their judgement in the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School (CA-2023-001319). The full judgement can be read here.
The Case
The case involved Ms Kristie Higgs and Farmor’s School. Farmor’s School is a secondary school located in Fairford in Gloucestershire and Ms Higgs was a school employee. Ms Higgs had worked at the school for six years as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager. At the time the case was heard by the Court of Appeal, there were also five interveners: (1) The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, (2) The Free Speech Union Limited, (3) The Association of Christian Teachers, (4) Sex Matters and, (5) The Equality and Human Rights Commission. The interveners provided written submissions to the case.
On 26th October 2018, a parent contacted the Head Teacher of Farmor’s School, advising that Ms Higgs had shared “homophobic and prejudiced” views on her personal Facebook page. The school undertook an investigation. While the investigation was ongoing, Ms Higgs was suspended. A report was compiled, and subsequently disciplinary proceedings were brought against Ms Higgs. A hearing to consider these disciplinary proceedings was held on 19th December 208. The outcome was that Ms Higgs was dismissed for gross misconduct on 7th January 2019.
The Employment Tribunal Process
Thereafter, Ms Higgs commenced proceedings at the Employment Tribunal. Ms Higgs argued her dismissal stemmed from her philosophical beliefs, including her rejection of gender fluidity, which are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Specifically, Ms Higgs raised claims of direct discrimination and harassment under Sections 13 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Ms Higgs had also brought claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal. However, these were, by agreement, withdrawn at a Case Management Hearing as they were brought out of time.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) initially upheld her dismissal, citing potential reputational damage to the school. However, Ms Higgs appealed this decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned the ET’s decision, highlighting the ET’s failure to assess whether dismissal was a proportionate response, as required by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal has now ruled the dismissal unlawful, finding it disproportionate and constituting direct discrimination. Although Ms Higgs posts utilised strong language, they did not incite hatred or represent the school’s views. The court further noted that the school could have mitigated any concerns by issuing a clarifying statement. The court was also mindful of the fact that Ms Higgs had worked there for six years without receiving any complaints about her performance.
The Judgement in Practice
This ruling affirms that employees can express controversial beliefs, even if they offend or contradict an employer’s equality, diversity and inclusion values. Employers must carefully evaluate the content, context, and impact of such expression before taking disciplinary action. The Court stressed the distinction between “objectionable” and “grossly offensive” language, with only the latter more likely to justify dismissal.
The decision makes it clear that while workplaces and educational institutions have the right to maintain inclusivity and respect, any restrictions on an employee’s expression of beliefs must be justified and proportionate. This case demonstrates the careful balancing act that employers will face when they are faced with competing protected characteristics.