The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has this week heard an appeal from Christian school assistant, Kristie Higgs, who claims that she was unlawfully dismissed by her employer (Farmor’s Secondary School in Fairford) after being sacked for sharing Facebook posts that criticised the introduction of teaching about LGBT relationships in primary schools.
Mrs K Higgs v Farmor’s School
Background
In 2018, Ms Higgs shared two posts via her private Facebook account (posting under her maiden name) which openly criticised teaching about LGBTQ+ relationships at her son’s Church of England primary school and encouraged other Facebook users to sign a petition against plans to make ‘relationship education’ compulsory for young children.
Following this, the headteacher at the school received an anonymous complaint that described the posts as being “homophobic and prejudiced to the LGBT community”.
Consequently, Ms Higgs was suspended from her role as pastoral administrator and work experience manager and an investigation was initiated by the school. The investigation was then followed by a meeting at a hotel, whereby Ms Higgs alleged that she was questioned for six hours in an “intimidating” manner and where her Facebook posts were likened to “pro-Nazi” views. Following the meeting, Ms Higgs was dismissed from her role for gross misconduct.
Ms Higgs brought an Employment Tribunal (ET) claim for discrimination and harassment on the grounds of religion or belief; that being, her lack of belief in matters relating to gender fluidity and same-sex marriage, and her beliefs relating to when “unbiblical” ideas are promoted that she should counter them. She also argued that her dismissal breached her freedom of speech.
ET ruling
The ET dismissed Ms Higgs’s claim that there was a causal connection between her beliefs and the way she was treated by the School. The judgment stated:
“Our view was that her treatment was not because of the relevant beliefs and accordingly her claim of direct discrimination failed.”
Adding:
“The act of which we concluded Mrs Higgs was accused and eventually found guilty was posting items on Facebook that might reasonably lead people who read her posts to conclude that she was homophobic and transphobic. That behaviour, the school felt, had the potential for a negative impact in relation to various groups of people, namely pupils, parents, staff and the wider community. We were also conscious that Mrs Higgs made it clear that she had no intention of desisting from making any further such posts in the future.”
Ms Higgs’s claim for harassment was also dismissed by the ET, with the judgement stating:
“This was an unexceptional disciplinary process. Whilst it clearly would have been unpleasant for Mrs Higgs to experience it, we were not satisfied that the conduct had either the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her.”
Appeal
Ms Higgs appealed the ET’s decision with the Barrister representing her, Richard O’Dair, arguing that “it is not transphobic to have doubts about gender reassignment for children”. Further commenting that the Tribunal’s conclusions were “perverse” and “not a view to which one can come if one has a proper understanding of free speech”.
Ms Higgs said:
“I was punished for sharing concerns about relationships and sex education. I hold these views because of my Christian beliefs, beliefs and views which are shared by hundreds of thousands of parents across the UK.
My number one concern has always been the effect that learning about sex and gender in school will have on children at such a young age. I have not discriminated against anyone, and never would.
I was raising concerns about my son being educated in matters that are not aligned with my religious beliefs and people could choose to agree or disagree. I would never tell others what to think. My bigger worry was that they were introducing the confusing idea of changing gender to children at such a young age in a Church of England primary school.
I am disappointed that the Church of England has failed to come out and support me and instead appear to be endorsing gender confusion in their primary schools. I am encouraged that the tribunal will hear my appeal and pray for justice this week.”
Lawyers for Ms Higgs contended at the appeal that the ET erred in law when it ruled in favour of the School and that the judge showed a “manifestly incorrect understanding” of freedom of speech.
Further, they argued that having read the Facebook posts published by Ms Higgs, no reasonable and informed person could reach the conclusion that they were a criticism of a certain approach to education, whether held by LGBT community members or non-LGBT secular liberals.
The EAT will give their judgement in this case in due course.
Comment
Employers must be very careful when dealing with issues whereby employees with strong beliefs express opinions that conflict with the beliefs, rights or freedoms of other employees.
Such situations can result in morale issues, grievances and complaints as well as potentially becoming the subject of litigation in the Employment Tribunal.
How Nelsons can help
Laura Kearsley is a Partner in our expert Employment Law team.
If you have any questions in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Laura or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.
