In a significant legal ruling, the Court of Appeal has sided with Kristie Higgs, a former employee of Farmor’s secondary school in Fairford, Gloucestershire, who was dismissed for sharing Facebook posts that criticized LGBTQ+ relationship education for primary schoolchildren.

The court described the school's decision to dismiss Higgs for gross misconduct as 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'disproportionate'.

Higgs, who held the position of pastoral administrator and work experience manager, was terminated from her role in 2019 following an anonymous complaint from a parent regarding her social media activity.

On Wednesday, three judges ruled in her favor, emphasizing that the dismissal constituted unlawful direct discrimination based on her religious beliefs.

The posts in question criticized the No Outsiders equalities program, which promotes inclusivity in schools.

Higgs's comments included terms like 'brainwashing' and expressed disagreement with the notion that gender is not binary and that same-sex marriage should be viewed equivalently to heterosexual marriage.

Lord Justice Underhill, along with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, asserted that an employee cannot be dismissed simply for expressing protected beliefs, referencing the Equality Act 2010. The initial employment tribunal had found in 2020 that while Higgs's religious beliefs were protected, her dismissal was lawful.

However, this was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023, which remitted the case back to the original tribunal for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal's judgment deemed this decision unnecessary, as it viewed the dismissal as discriminatory.

Underhill pointed out that Higgs’s beliefs were indeed protected under the law.

The school justified her termination by asserting that her posts were 'intemperately expressed' and had the potential to harm its reputation, but Underhill countered that this concern did not warrant dismissal given that Higgs had not exhibited discriminatory behavior in her professional capacity.

Higgs commented outside the Royal Courts of Justice, stating that she aimed to raise awareness of certain teachings in schools.

She expressed that the judgment recognized the right of Christians to voice their beliefs publicly, despite contrasting views.

Sean Jones KC, representing Farmor’s, argued that Higgs's dismissal was not based on her beliefs but rather on how she communicated them, which he claimed could have reasonably led others to view her as expressing homophobic or transphobic opinions.

He stated that fuller reasons for the dismissal were needed.

The ruling included a nuanced discussion about the nature of Higgs's social media posts, which Underhill described as not grossly offensive in the context provided.

A spokesperson for Stonewall cautioned that the ruling was specific to the proportionality of Higgs's dismissal and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of her views.

They emphasized the ongoing responsibility of schools to implement inclusive policies and combat discrimination towards LGBTQ+ individuals.