FREEDOM OF BELIEF IN THE WORKPLACE
Higgs v Farmor’s School: A Landmark Case on Freedom of Belief in the Workplace
The Court of Appeal’s recent ruling in Higgs v Farmor’s School is a significant decision for employers, particularly in the education sector, when balancing employees’ rights to express their beliefs with organisational reputation and inclusion policies.
Background
Kristie Higgs, a pastoral administrator at Farmor’s School, was dismissed in 2019 after sharing social media posts critical of LGBTQ+ inclusive education in primary schools. The posts, shared privately on Facebook, expressed concern over the introduction of relationship and sex education reforms. An anonymous complaint was made to the school, triggering a disciplinary process that led to her dismissal for gross misconduct.
The Original Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal Decision
Mrs Higgs brought a claim for discrimination, arguing that her dismissal was due to her Christian beliefs. While the Employment Tribunal accepted that her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010, it ruled in favour of the school, finding that the dismissal was not because of her beliefs themselves but the way they were expressed and the potential impact on the school’s reputation.
“This case is likely to influence future disputes on belief discrimination, particularly where employees express views on controversial social issues in the public domain. Employers should take a measured approach, balancing inclusion and reputation management with employees’ rights under the law.”
In 2023, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) granted Mrs Higgs permission to appeal the original 2020 tribunal ruling. However, instead of allowing all of her grounds of appeal to proceed, it ruled that the case should be remitted back to the employment tribunal (ET) to be reheard.
The Court of Appeal’s Findings
The Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal’s ruling, finding that the dismissal was unlawfully discriminatory and disproportionate. The key findings were:
Freedom of belief is protected: The Court reaffirmed that holding and expressing religious or philosophical beliefs is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
Proportionality matters: While employers can take action where an employee’s conduct conflicts with organisational values, they must show that any disciplinary measures are a proportionate response. The Court found that, in this case, the school had not demonstrated this.
Reputational damage concerns require evidence: The school’s argument that Mrs Higgs’s posts could have harmed its reputation was not supported by evidence of actual damage.
The right to private expression: The judgment noted that Mrs Higgs’s posts were made in a personal capacity, outside the workplace, and were not targeted at any individual or group within the school community.
What This Means for Employers
This ruling serves as an important reminder that employers must tread carefully when addressing employees’ personal expression of beliefs. Steps to consider include:
Review policies on social media and conduct: Ensure they clearly outline expectations but do not disproportionately restrict employees’ rights.
Assess proportionality in disciplinary actions: Dismissing an employee for expressing personal beliefs alone will rarely be justified. Employers will need to take account of tone, context, content, extent of comments etc.
Balance reputational risk concerns with legal protections: Concerns about damage to reputation must be backed by tangible evidence, not just theoretical risks.
Provide training for managers: Equip decision-makers with the knowledge to handle these issues fairly and in line with legal protections.
This case is likely to influence future disputes on belief discrimination, particularly where employees express views on controversial social issues in the public domain. Employers should take a measured approach, balancing inclusion and reputation management with employees’ rights under the law.