Balancing the rights of employees: Higgs v Farmor’s School

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Higgs v Farmor’s School is the latest in a line of cases regarding the balance between employees’ rights to express personal beliefs and the potential impact on workplace reputation.

Background

Kristie Higgs, a pastoral administrator at Farmor’s School in Gloucestershire, was dismissed in 2019 after sharing Facebook posts critical of LGBTQ+ relationship education in primary schools.

 An anonymous complaint described her posts as ‘homophobic and prejudiced’, leading the school to terminate her employment for gross misconduct, citing potential reputational damage.

Mrs Higgs contended that her dismissal constituted discrimination based on her Christian beliefs.

Court of Appeal decision

On 12 February 2025, the Court of Appeal (CA) ruled in favour of Mrs Higgs, determining that her dismissal was not objectively justified by Farmor’s School and was a disproportionate response, constituting unlawful discrimination. Mrs Higgs’ posts did not amount to gross misconduct nor justify termination.

In reaching its decision, the CA emphasised the following points:

• The language used by Mrs Higgs was objectional but not grossly offensive.
• The posts were not a direct attack on homosexuality.
• The language used was not Mrs Higgs’ own, she had reposted the messages from others.
• There was no possibility that readers of the posts would believe they represented the school’s views.
• Mrs Higgs was a long-serving employee who had not exhibited discriminatory behaviour in her professional role.
• There was no evidence that the posts had adversely affected the school’s reputation.

Learning points for employers

This decision emphasises several considerations for employers:

1. Certain beliefs of employees are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Disciplinary action based solely on the expression of such beliefs, especially outside the workplace, may constitute unlawful discrimination.
2. Employers must assess whether any disciplinary measures are a proportionate response to the employee’s conduct. The context of the expression, its potential impact on the workplace, and whether it directly affects job performance should be carefully evaluated.
3. While protecting an organisation’s reputation is a legitimate concern, action taken against employees should be based on concrete evidence of reputational damage rather than hypothetical or perceived risks.
4. Clear guidelines regarding employees’ use of social media can outline acceptable conduct. However, such policies must respect employees’ rights to private expression, particularly when it does not directly relate to their professional responsibilities.
5. Employers are encouraged to foster an inclusive environment that respects diverse viewpoints. When addressing conflicts arising from expressed beliefs, a balanced approach that considers the rights and freedoms of all parties is essential.

Comment

In light of this judgment, employers should review their policies and procedures to ensure they align with legal protections for freedom of expression of beliefs. Prior to taking disciplinary action related to an employee’s expressed beliefs, especially on personal platforms, a thorough, objective and context-sensitive assessment is crucial.