27th February 2025 ❘

Manifestation of beliefs, dismissal and discrimination – Higgs v Farmor’s School

Manifestation of beliefs, dismissal and discrimination – Higgs v Farmor’s School

Manifestation of beliefs, dismissal and discrimination – Higgs v Farmor’s School

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Higgs v Farmor’s School held that the dismissal of Mrs Higgs for her Facebook posts was unlawful discrimination. This is an important decision which employers should be aware of…

Facts

Mrs Higgs was employed as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager. Mrs Higgs is a Christian and expressed gender critical views on Facebook criticising the teaching of sex education in schools, in particular, the teaching of ‘gender fluidity.’

The school was concerned of the impact the posts would have on its reputation particularly after one parent complained about the posts. Mrs Higgs was subject to a disciplinary procedure and dismissed for gross misconduct.

Mrs Higgs brought claims of direct discrimination and harassment in the Employment Tribunal on the grounds of her protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. Mrs Higgs’ protected beliefs included her lack of belief in gender fluidity and that same-sex marriage cannot be equated to traditional marriage.

Decision

Following the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions, the Court of Appeal held that her posts did not incite hatred of individuals, nor did her views influence her work as she never treated pupils differently, no complaints about her work had been raised as a cause for concern and her dismissal was not objectively justified. The posts were largely re-posts or copied from other sources, they were not her own words. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the school had suffered reputational damage as it was only one parent who had raised concern.

The Court of Appeal did accept that if the belief had become widespread it could have caused reputational damage in the community but held that “the risk of widespread circulation was speculative at best.” The decision to dismiss was a disproportionate response.

Key takeaways

This case follows the decision of Forstater v CGD Europe (2021) in which it was held that such gender-critical beliefs are to be given the same protection as other religious, philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010.

This is an example of where the actions of an employee could have the potential to cause reputational damage but where they exercise their right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression in communicating their protected beliefs. It highlights the difficult balancing exercise for employers in managing conflicting protected characteristics in the workplace alongside preserving its reputation. Employers must carry out a precise and careful analysis of any manifestation of belief which could have negative repercussions and each case will always be fact specific. Businesses should seek advice before taking any disciplinary action or otherwise, to prevent unwanted consequences.

This case does not prevent employers from taking action when concerns arise but rather acts as a reminder that any action or response must be proportionate and objectively justified. Having a clear social media policy about standards expected can also be beneficial in establishing company objectives.

For further advice, just get in touch and our Employment team will be happy to assist.