Kristie H. Higgs has won the case in the Court of Appeal against her Christian school employer who fired her after she shared Facebook posts deemed to be transphobic and homosexual.
Higgs, 48 years old, has been involved in a six year legal battle with his former employers at Farmor’s School, Fairford, Gloucestershire.
Higgs was granted permission to appeal her original tribunal ruling in 2020 by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which she attended in 2023. Instead of allowing her to pursue all grounds of appeal, the judge denied Higgs an outright victory by ordering that the case be sent back to the Employment Tribunal (ET) for a rehearing.
This decision was overturned by Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Bean in an unprecedented decision handed down today.
The Equality Act is a law that protects Christian traditional beliefs in social issues such as opposing transgenderism, gender-fluidity, and same-sex relationships.
According to Christian Concern which supported Higgs, the judgement has reshaped the law regarding freedom of religion at work. The ruling effectively creates a legal precedent that any dismissal based on an expression or demonstration of Christian faith would be illegal.
The Court of Appeal clarified that it is the employer’s burden to prove to the tribunal that any dismissal of this nature can be objectively justified and not just what the employer believes to be justified.
The court ruled that a dismissal was only lawful if objectively justified, as required by law, and necessary in a democracy.
Farmor’s School claimed during the trial that the reason for dismissing Mrs Higgs had nothing to do with the Christian faith of the woman, but rather the language used by her in social media posts.
The judges rejected this argument. They said that Higgs was dismissed because it was “unquestionably an disproportionate reaction” and “even if language in the re-posts exceeds the threshold for objectionability, they are not grossly offensive”.
The court added: “There is no evidence to suggest that the school’s reputation has been damaged so far: the concern was for potential damage in future. As it accepted, it was impossible that readers would associate the claimant and the school with their posts.
“Any damage to reputation would be in the form of fear expressed by complainant. Specifically, that claimant [Higgs] could express at work the homophobic or transphobic attitudes implied in the language. I agree that, if this belief spreads widely, it can harm the reputation of the school in the community. This is what the panel thought. The risk of a widespread distribution was at best speculative.
“Unquestionably, a disproportionate reaction”
The ruling stated that the posts had been made on her Facebook personal account in her maiden names and without any reference to the school.
The judgment continued, “Even though readers of the posts may have feared that the claimant might let her views affect her work in the future, neither the ET nor the panel believed that she would,” concluded the judgement. “There was nothing to doubt that her concern was about the content of primary school sex education; that she’d ‘not bring this into schools’; and she’d never treat transgender or gay pupils differently. It was true that there had been no complaints regarding her work in the past six years.
The judges stated that they believed “that dismissal is even arguably proportionate for the claimant’s conduct”.
The Court overruled EAT’s earlier decision to remit this case for a retrial and concluded that “We ourselves should hold that the claimant’s dismissal constituted illegal discrimination on grounds of religion and beliefs.”
Higgs responded to the Court of Appeal’s decision by saying: “In October 2018 I shared two Facebook posts in order to increase awareness of gender ideologies that were going to be taught at schools as part of Relationships Education and Sex education.
“I lost my job because of these posts.” After nearly seven years the Court of Appeal finally rectified this.
“Expressing Biblical Christian teachings on gender and sexuality might appear offensive to those with opposing views. However, as today’s judgement signals, Christians have the right to publicly express their beliefs.
This is not about me. “Too many Christians have been marginalised or disciplined at work due to their Christian faith.”
Landmark Day
She continued: “I give all praise, glory, and honour to God.” His grace and mercy is the reason I am here today.
“I pray today will be a historic day for Christian Freedoms and Free Speech. Christians are free to express themselves on social media or in other settings that do not have a work-related purpose without fear of punishment by their employers.
“Expressing the biblical truth is not discriminatory.” It is a manifestation of love and light.
“Today’s judgement is just as important as freedom of religion for free speech. Employers can no longer discipline employees on the basis of their subjective or theoretical concerns about offending others.
The Court of Appeal now has a standard that protects people like me and the many other Christians who live in this country from losing their job for expressing their religious beliefs.
Andrea Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre said, “Freedom of speech and religious freedom are still not extinguished in English law.” The case of Kristie sets a precedent that will be important for many years.
The Court of Appeal confirmed loudly and clearly that ideological censorship is illegal. Any employer who violates their employees’ rights to freedom of conscience, religion, or thought breaks the law of this land.
This is a huge victory for Kristie who lost her job, and her livelihood because she did nothing more than express her disgust at the absurd ideas of gender-fluidity that were being taught to her daughter at a Church of England Primary School.
Background to Higgs V Farmor’s School
Higgs was fired after she expressed her views on how sex education and LGBT relationships (RSE) are taught in schools. These posts were made in 2018 on her personal Facebook page and did not mention her employer.
She was dismissed after the school received complaints regarding her posts. The allegations included discrimination, inappropriate social media use and comments made online. She said that when she was questioned by the school about the posts, her views were compared to Nazism.
The original tribunal dismissed Higgs’ case against Farmor’s school because it found that the school did not discriminate or harass Higgs on the basis her religion. Higgs was found to have been dismissed even though her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act.
Lawyers successfully appealed to the EAT the inclusion of two members on the appeal panel for their apparent bias. One was a trans activist who had links to Stonewall and the other a senior unionist from the National Education Union which supported making RSE compulsory in primary schools.
The EAT judge Justice Eady heard the case by himself after both lay members recused themselves.
Eady stated in June 2023: “The right to freely express beliefs (religious and otherwise) as well as to have an opinion about those beliefs is a fundamental right in any democratic society, regardless of whether the belief in question has widespread acceptance or not, and even if it may be offensive.
Kristie Higgs, whose lawyers appealed Eady’s decision and argued that returning her case to the same ET who had already committed serious errors, risked denying her justice again.
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, ruling that the appeal raised a number of “important questions”, allowed the to be taken to the Court of Appeal in October 2024.
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
