In 2019, Kristie Higgs, a dedicated pastoral administrator and work experience manager at Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, found herself at the center of a legal storm. Her dismissal from the school stemmed from a series of social media posts she shared on Facebook, which criticized the introduction of LGBT+ relationship education in primary schools. Higgs, a devout Christian and mother of two, felt compelled to voice her concerns about the potential impact of such teachings on young children. Her decision to speak out ultimately led to her losing her job, but her fight for justice did not end there. In a significant legal victory, the Court of Appeal ruled in her favor, declaring that the decision to send her case back to an employment tribunal for further review was “unlawfully discriminatory.”
The journey to this landmark ruling was not an easy one. Higgs was dismissed from her role in 2019 after her employer, Farmor’s School, deemed her social media posts inappropriate and potentially harmful to the school’s reputation. The school defended its decision, stating that the language used in the posts was offensive and could damage the institution’s image. However, Higgs maintained that she was simply expressing her deeply held Christian beliefs and had not displayed any discriminatory behavior in her professional capacity. Her case gained significant attention, particularly among religious and free-speech advocates, who argued that employees should have the right to express their views outside of work without fear of retribution.
In June 2023, an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) initially ruled in Higgs’ favor, acknowledging that the case merited further consideration. However, the tribunal’s decision to remit the case back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision was met with opposition from Higgs’ legal team. Her lawyers argued that this move was “unnecessary” and that the EAT had already established that her dismissal was unlawful. The Court of Appeal agreed with this assessment, overturning the EAT’s decision and delivering a clear victory for Higgs. In a powerful judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, one of the three judges presiding over the case, emphasized that Higgs’ posts were primarily quotes from other sources and that she was exercising her right to object to government policy on sex education in primary schools.
The ruling also addressed the school’s claims about the tone and potential reputational damage caused by Higgs’ posts. Lord Justice Underhill stated that while the language used may have been forthright, it did not justify her dismissal, especially since she had not expressed any such views in the workplace or displayed discriminatory behavior toward students. This distinction is crucial, as it highlights the importance of separating one’s personal beliefs from professional conduct. The court’s decision underscored the principle that employees should not be penalized for expressing lawful opinions outside of work, particularly when those opinions do not interfere with their duties or create a hostile work environment.
Higgs’ case has sparked broader debates about the balance between freedom of expression and workplace policies. Outside the Royal Courts of Justice following her victory, Higgs expressed her relief and determination, stating, “Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.” Her words resonate with many who believe that individuals should be free to voice their beliefs, even if those beliefs are contentious, as long as they do not incite harm or hatred. This case serves as a reminder that the boundaries between personal and professional life, particularly in the digital age, are often blurred, and employers must navigate these complexities carefully.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Higgs’ individual case, as it sets an important precedent for future disputes involving freedom of speech and religious liberty. It reaffirms the principle that individuals should not be unfairly penalized for expressing their beliefs outside of work, provided those expressions do not directly impact their professional responsibilities. While the case has been widely celebrated by advocates of free speech, it also raises important questions about the responsibilities of employers in addressing potentially offensive or controversial content shared by employees on social media.
In conclusion, Kristie Higgs’ legal victory marks a significant step forward in the ongoing conversation about the intersection of personal beliefs, workplace policies, and freedom of expression. Her courage in challenging her dismissal and the court’s ruling in her favor serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of protecting individual liberties, even in the face of societal changes and evolving sensitivities. As debates about identity, education, and speech continue to unfold, cases like Higgs’ remind us of the need for balance and understanding in navigating these complex issues. While the road ahead may still be fraught with challenges, Higgs’ story offers hope for those who believe that their voices deserve to be heard, both in and out of the workplace.
