Court of Appeal Backs Christian School Worker, Ruling Her Views on LGBT Issues Are Protected Beliefs and Don’t Affect Her Work
In Ms Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School and Others, a Christian school worker succeeded in her Court of Appeal claim. After being sacked for expressing online how schools teach sex education in the UK, she lodged claims concerning a violation of her freedom of belief. However, the Employment Tribunal dismissed them.
After appealing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, this decision was overturned but the case was remitted. Ms Higgs found this “unnecessary”, and the Court of Appeal agreed, hoping the parties would now settle outside of court. Read on as we discuss what happened and the Court of Appeal’s decision.
The Facts in Ms Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School and Others
Parent Complains about Claimant’s Social Media Activity
Before her dismissal, Ms Kristie Higgs (“the Claimant”) was a pastoral administrator and work experience manager for Farmor’s School (“the Respondent”). She had worked at the Gloucestershire secondary school for six years and was a Christian.
Complaints were initially brought to the Respondent’s attention on 26 October 2018, when a parent emailed head teacher Matthew Evans. It was alleged the Christian school worker had expressed “homophobic and prejudiced views” on her Facebook page.
The email provided attachments showcasing the Claimant stating, “PLEASE READ THIS! THEY ARE BRAINWASHING OUR CHILDREN!” before pasting information from another source. The pasted text discussed how sex education in the UK would bring topics of “same-sex marriage” and gender being a “matter of choice” into schools. It also explained that since Christian beliefs conflicted with “the new morality”, “freedom of belief will be destroyed”.
At the end of the post, the Claimant urged readers to sign a petition organised by CitizenGo.Org. The organisation aimed to “uphold the right of parents to have children educated in line with their religious beliefs”.
Three days later, the parent provided Mr Evans with further information concerning the Claimant’s social media activity. Additional attachments were sent, this time showing her re-posting messages from US campaigners. One such message stated, “Kindergarten and first-grade children are being primed for a gender-fluid society. Of course, the schools are introducing the propaganda in the name of anti-bullying campaigns, but we know better.”
Respondent Investigates Christian School Worker
Following the complaints, an investigation was launched on 30 October, and the Christian school worker was interviewed. At that time, she confirmed she’d posted and re-posted the messages in question and accepted that the school’s parents may have seen them.
When asked whether others may find her posts offensive, she said, “Yes. I am not against gay, lesbian or transgender people. It’s about making sure people are aware of what’s going on…” She later added, “I don’t have any issues with gay, lesbian or transgender people; I love all people.”
A further meeting took place on 8 November, where the Claimant was asked whether her posts could undermine her trusted role in supporting children, including those who may identify as LGBT. She quickly rejected this, stating she would treat all children the same and wouldn’t let her personal views affect her work.
The Christian school worker was also asked about the reputational risks her posts may pose to the Respondent, and she pointed to her religion and beliefs. She stated those on Facebook were her friends and would know she wouldn’t discriminate. She added, “If anything, I am being discriminated against as I have shared what the government is doing; this is what I stand for …”
Christian School Worker Dismissed and Brings Court Action
The investigation concluded, and a report was provided on 30 November, stating that there was a case to answer. A subsequent disciplinary hearing took place on 19 December, during which the Respondent claimed to have proven various allegations.
Among them, the Claimant was found guilty of discrimination, social media misuse that brought the school into disrepute, and breaches of the school’s code of conduct. The codes breached included “inappropriate language which may humiliate pupils” and her online persona not matching her expected professional image.
Following the Respondent’s findings, the Christian school worker was dismissed with immediate effect on 7 January 2019 for gross misconduct. While she appealed this decision, her appeal was ultimately unsuccessful.
As such, with no other way of rectifying her situation, the Claimant initiated Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings on 15 April. She initially claimed unfair and wrongful dismissal, as well as discrimination and harassment relating to her religion and beliefs. However, her unfair and wrongful dismissal claims were later dismissed due to them being out of time.
The Court of Appeal’s Judgment
EAT Overturns ET’s Decision
Following the initial ET proceedings in September 2020, it was determined that the Claimant’s views on gender fluidity and same-sex marriage satisfied the Grainger test, making them protected beliefs. However, upon review, the ET didn’t believe her dismissal specifically arose because of them.
Instead, the ET felt she was dismissed because the school was concerned that her expression of those beliefs might be interpreted as homophobic and transphobic views, which wouldn’t be protected. Therefore, since the Respondent appeared not to dismiss her because of her beliefs, the discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed.
Unhappy with this decision, the Christian school worker took her case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Following proceedings in March 2023, the EAT found that the ET failed to properly assess whether her social media posts were a manifestation of her protected beliefs. They further deliberated whether the school’s actions were a proportionate and lawful interference with her right to freedom of expression.
The EAT ruled the ET had incorrectly focused on the school’s concerns about third-party perceptions rather than conducting the required proportionality assessment. Consequently, it overturned the original decision and remitted the case back to the ET.
CA Rules in Favour of The Christian School Worker
While the Claimant had succeeded with her appeal, she didn’t believe the case needed to be remitted. She felt the EAT should have ruled in favour of her discrimination and harassment claims. Hence, she sent her case to the Court of Appeal (CA) on 7 July.
On 12 February 2025, the CA issued its decision, ruling in favour of the Christian school worker. The CA held that neither her posts nor the potential reputational risk to the school justified her dismissal. This was especially the case since she hadn’t said similar things at work or been discriminatory toward pupils at school. Therefore, the CA stated her “dismissal constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.”
The only reason the CA felt the case needed to be remitted was to determine the remedy. However, it stated, “I hope and expect that remittal of the disciplinary process claim will not be necessary”, implying an expectation that the case will be settled outside of court.