Category: freedom of expression

‘Introduction

1. On 12 February 2025 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Higgs v Farmor’s School.

Facts

2. Mrs Higgs had been employed by Farmor’s School for six years, latterly in two roles, as a pastoral administrator (with responsibility for overseeing students removed from class for disruptive behaviour) and as a work experience manager. She has two children, one of whom was a pupil at the School [1].
3. Mrs Higgs is a Christian. She believes in the literal truth of the Bible, that marriage is a divinely instituted life-long union between a man and a woman, and that she should witness to Biblical truth. She is opposed to relationship education for primary school children and does not believe that someone can change their biological sex [27].
4. Mrs Higgs had a private Facebook account in her maiden name. Nothing on her Facebook account linked her to the School.
5. On 24.10.2018 Mrs Higgs posted the text of an article critical of the government’s decision to introduce mandatory relationship education in primary schools. The article stated that “children will be taught that all relationships are equally valid and ‘normal,’ so that same sex marriage is exactly the same as traditional marriage, and that gender is a matter of choice, not biology…freedom of belief will be destroyed, with freedom of speech permitted only for those who tow the party line! We say again, this is a vicious form of totalitarianism aimed at suppressing Christianity…” Mrs Higgs added an introductory title (stating children were being brainwashed) and a request to sign a petition [10].
6. On 27.10.2018 Mrs Higgs reposted an article from a US website about two story books for primary school children which allegedly promoted ideas of gender fluidity [12].
7. One of Mrs Higgs’ Facebook ‘friends’ complained to the School that “a member of your staff who works directly with children has been posting homophobic and prejudiced views against the LGBT community on Facebook” [9]. The complainant attached screenshots of the posts.
8. On 30.10.2018 Mrs Higgs attended a meeting at the School about the posts. She accepted the posts might be considered offensive or prejudiced but stated she was not against and had no “issues” with gay, lesbian or transgender people. Rather, she was opposed to the government’s policy of relationship education for primary school children.
9. On 31.10.2018 the School suspended Mrs Higgs and initiated a disciplinary investigation into her alleged contraventions of its Code of Conduct, including communications which could amount to illegal discrimination, and serious inappropriate use of social media that could bring the School into disrepute and damage its reputation.
10. In one of the investigation meetings, Mrs Higgs was asked if the posts might compromise her position of trust working with children. She rejected this: “Students know me and I know gay students, I wouldn’t treat any of them any different. … I wouldn’t bring this into School” [16]. The School uncovered no evidence of Mrs Higgs expressing views about gender fluidity or same-sex marriage to pupils or staff or treating gay, lesbian or transgender pupils or staff differently [17]. Nonetheless the investigating officer found there was a case to answer on all allegations of misconduct.
11.Following a disciplinary hearing, the School summarily dismissed Mrs Higgs. She appealed, unsuccessfully, then brought a claim for direct religion or belief discrimination and harassment related to religion or belief, claiming that she had been dismissed because she had manifested her beliefs (as set out at §3 above) [26-28].

Full Story

Cloisters Chambers, 28th February 2025

Source: www.cloisters.com