In Mrs Kristie Higgs v 1) Farmor’s School 2) Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England the Claimant/Appellant had been employed by the Respondent primary school in a role involving pastoral care.
She posted, on her personal Facebook account, posts which included one referring to mandatory Relationships and Sex Education classes “brainwashing” children in relation to same sex marriage and that “gender is a matter of choice not biology”. The post included the statement that “children will be taught that all relationships are equally valid and ‘normal’”. That text was accompanied by a request that readers sign a petition on the matter.
A complaint was received from a parent, stating that the Claimant “has been posting homophobic and prejudiced views against the LGBT community”.
The Claimant was, following a disciplinary process, dismissed from her post. The Respondent School accepted that there had been no concerns relating to the Claimant’s conduct in her roles at the school. However, it found that the language of the posts concerned was “inflammatory and quite extreme”.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claims of protected belief discrimination. The Claimant appealed.
The EAT upheld the appeal. It concluded that the ET “did not engage with the question whether [the Respondent’s treatment of the Claimant] was, nonetheless, because of, or related to, the claimant’s manifestation of her beliefs”. To the extent to which did consider that question, it did so “through the prism of the respondent’s view of the Claimant’s posts”.
That resulted in the ET by-passing the balancing exercise necessary as a result of the engagement with the Claimant’s rights, including consideration of whether the restriction of her rights was prescribed by law, and were necessary in pursuit of the protection of the rights, freedoms or reputation of others.
Source: Lexology
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
