Ruling by the Court of Appeal for this particular case is significant as it addresses the complex balance between an employee’s right to express religious beliefs and an employer’s duty to maintain an inclusive working environment.
It highlights that dismissing an employee purely for expressing protected beliefs, without evidence of workplace misconduct or reputational damage, constitutes unlawful discrimination.
Background
Kristie Higgs, a Christian, worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire. In October 2018, she shared social media posts critical of LGBTQ+ content in primary school education reflecting her religious convictions.
An anonymous complaint from a parent claimed the posts were “homophobic and prejudiced” prompting the school to suspend and later dismiss Higgs for gross misconduct in January 2019. Higgs subsequently claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination based on her religious beliefs.
Allegations:
- Direct discrimination – Higgs argued that her dismissal was directly due to her religious beliefs which she expressed lawfully outside of work.
- Harassment – she claimed that the disciplinary process and subsequent dismissal created a hostile environment, infringing upon her rights to hold and express religious views.
Tribunal Findings
Employment Tribunal (ET) – The ET acknowledged that Higgs’s beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 but ruled against her, finding that the school’s decision was based on concerns over reputational damage rather than her beliefs themselves.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) – The EAT overturned the ET’s ruling, stating that the tribunal had failed to properly assess whether the school’s response was proportionate and justified.
Court of Appeal (2025) – The Court of Appeal ruled in Higgs’s favour again, concluding that her dismissal was unlawful discrimination. The court found:
- Higgs had not manifested any discriminatory behaviour in the workplace.
- Her posts were not “grossly offensive.”
- There was no tangible evidence of reputational harm to the school.
- Dismissing her for expressing her religious beliefs outside of work was disproportionate.
HR Key Takeaways
We must approach social media related dismissals with precision and fairness. Employers cannot discipline employees for personal views expressed outside of work unless those views cause genuine harm, breach workplace policies, or amount to discrimination.
Any decision based on assumption or discomfort rather than clear evidence risks serious legal and reputational consequences.
Workplace policies should provide clarity on acceptable conduct while respecting legal protections for religious and philosophical beliefs.
It is not enough to have broad guidelines. Employees need to understand how these policies apply in practice.
Likewise, any disciplinary action must be based on facts, not fear of public perception. A vague concern about reputational damage does not justify dismissal. If it did, half of LinkedIn would be out of a job.
Beyond policies, organisations must equip managers with the skills to handle conflicts over differing beliefs. Training in navigating sensitive discussions ensures that disagreements are managed constructively rather than escalating into disciplinary issues. A culture that allows open dialogue while reinforcing workplace standards is far more effective than a reactionary approach.
Acting too hastily in these situations creates unnecessary legal risk. As HR, we must ensure that every decision is proportionate, justified, and aligned with both legal requirements and company values. A well handled case strengthens organisational integrity, while a poorly managed one can quickly unravel it.
hr, like it's hard? 