12/02/2025
This is actually good for all society, not just Christians. It allows people to have more honesty in dialogue at work.
VICTORY FOR FREEDOM
KRISTIE HIGGS WINS AS COURT OF APPEAL RULES DISMISSAL FOR FREE SPEECH IS ILLEGAL
In a seminal judgment for Christian freedom and free speech, the Court of Appeal has reversed a ruling which defended the dismissal of Kristie Higgs from Farmor’s School in Gloucestershire for raising concern on Facebook about extreme s*x education and transgender ideology being taught in her son's Church of England primary school.
The groundbreaking decision, handed down this morning by Lord Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, re-examines and re-shapes England’s law on religious discrimination. (see legal analysis in notes to editors.)
The dramatic six-year legal battle has been supported by the Christian Legal Centre from the beginning. Mrs Higgs, 48, was represented in court by barrister, Mr Richard O'Dair.
The ruling confirms that the Equality Act protects traditional Christian beliefs on social issues, such as opposition to the ideas of transgenderism and ‘gender-fluidity’ and opposition to same-s*x marriage.
The authoritative judgment re-shapes the law on freedom of religion in the workplace. For the first time in employment law, the judgment has effectively established a legal presumption that any dismissal for an expression or manifestation of Christian faith is illegal.
It explained that the burden is on the employer to prove in the Employment Tribunal that any such dismissal can be objectively justified (not just that they believed it was justified) and was prescribed by law, proportionate and otherwise necessary in a democratic society to address a pressing social need.
The Court of Appeal has also ruled that such a dismissal would only be lawful if it was objectively justified as prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.
Mrs Higgs' employer had argued during the case that its justification for sacking Mrs Higgs was not to do with her Christian beliefs but because of the language she used in the posts.
This argument, however, was rejected by the judges, who said in their ruling that Kristie's: "dismissal was unquestionably a disproportionate response", and that "even if the language of the re-posts passes the threshold of objectionability, it is not grossly offensive."
They added that: "There was no evidence that the reputation of the School had thus far been damaged: its concern was about potential damage in the future (see, again, the final paragraph of the passage in the dismissal letter quoted at para. 22 above). As it also accepted, there was no possibility that, even if readers of the posts associated the Claimant with the School, they would believe that they represented its own views.
"Any reputational damage would only take the form of the fear expressed by the complainant, namely that the Claimant might express at work the homophobic and transphobic attitudes arguably implicit in the language used. I accept that if that belief became widespread it could harm the School’s reputation in the community, as the panel clearly thought. But the risk of widespread circulation was speculative at best. The posts were made on her personal Facebook account, in her maiden name and with no reference to the School. By the time of the hearing, several weeks after the posts were made, only one person was known to have recognised who she was.”
Furthermore they have ruled that: "Even if readers of the posts might fear that the Claimant would let her views influence her work, neither the panel nor the ET believed that she would do so. There was no reason to doubt her assertion that her concern was specifically about the content of s*x education in primary schools; that she “wouldn’t bring this into school”; and that she would never treat gay or trans pupils differently (see para. 16 above). There had indeed been no complaints about any aspect of her work for over six years.”
"Taking those reasons together,", the judges said, "I do not believe that dismissal was even arguably a proportionate sanction for the Claimant’s conduct. It was no doubt unwise of her to re-post material expressed in (to use the ET’s words) florid and provocative language with which she did not agree, and in circumstances where people were liable to realise her connection with the School. But I cannot accept that that can justify her dismissal, and still less so where she was a long-serving employee against whose actual work there was no complaint of any kind.”
The Court therefore overruled the earlier decision of Employment Appeal Tribunal to remit the case for a re-trial, and concluded: “we should ourselves hold that the Claimant’s dismissal constituted unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion and belief”.
