A Christian school worker who was sacked after she shared Facebook posts raising concerns about lessons in LGBTQ+ relationships for primary schoolchildren has won her battle in the court of appeal.
Kristie Higgs was dismissed from her role as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at Farmor’s, a secondary school in Fairford, Gloucestershire, in 2019 after an anonymous complaint from a parent at the school.
On Wednesday, three court of appeal judges ruled in her favour, describing the decision to sack her for gross misconduct as “unlawfully discriminatory” and “disproportionate”. Higgs welcomed the ruling as “a landmark day for Christian freedoms and free speech”.
Higgs was dismissed after reposting and commenting on messages on her personal Facebook account that criticised plans to teach the No Outsiders equalities programme at her son’s Church of England primary school.
The posts referred to “brainwashing” children and criticised the teaching of “gender fluidity” and the view that same-sex marriage was equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman, which conflicted with Higgs’s Christian faith.
Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled that the dismissal of an employee “merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act”.
An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Higgs’s religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was still lawful, but this decision was subsequently overturned by an employment appeal tribunal (EAT) in 2023.
The EAT then ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Higgs’s lawyers challenged in the court of appeal as “unnecessary”. The court of appeal judgment ruled the decision to remit the case to the tribunal was discriminatory.
Underhill said it was not in dispute that Higgs’s beliefs that gender was binary and same-sex marriage could not be equated with marriage between a man and a woman were protected by the Equality Act 2010.
The school, however, sought to justify her dismissal on the basis that the posts in question were “intemperately expressed and included insulting references to the promoters of gender fluidity and ‘the LGBT crowd’, which were liable to damage the school’s reputation in the community”.
Underhill said in the judgment: “However, neither the language of the posts nor the risk of reputational damage were capable of justifying the claimant’s dismissal in circumstances where she had not said anything of the kind at work or displayed any discriminatory attitudes in her treatment of pupils.”
In a statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Higgs said: “In October 2018, I shared two private Facebook posts to raise awareness of the gender ideology that was going to be taught to young children in schools as part of statutory relationships and sex education.
after newsletter promotion
“Because of those posts, I lost my job. Today, after nearly seven years, the court of appeal has finally put that right. Expressing biblical Christian teaching on gender and sexuality may appear to be offensive to those who hold the opposite views, but as today’s judgment signals, Christians have a right to express their beliefs publicly.
Sean Jones KC, acting for Farmor’s, said in earlier written submissions that Higgs was not dismissed for manifesting her beliefs “but because the manner in which it was manifested could reasonably have caused and did cause others to think she was expressing homophobic or transphobic views”. He argued remitting the case was appropriate as “fuller reasons” for the decision were needed.
In a 57-page ruling, Underhill said Higgs’s posts were not grossly offensive but a series of derogatory sneers. “I do not believe that dismissal was even arguably a proportionate sanction for the claimant’s conduct,” he added.
A spokesperson for Stonewall said: “Today’s court of appeal ruling is a judgment on the proportionality of her dismissal, not an endorsement of the beliefs she expressed. This judgment does not weaken the responsibility of schools and institutions to uphold inclusive policies, or to tackle discriminatory environments for both students and staff.”
The Press Association contributed to this report