Kristie Higgs has won a decisive victory in the Court of Appeal, marking the end of a six-year legal battle over her dismissal from Farmor’s School in Gloucestershire. The 49-year-old school administrator was fired in 2019 after sharing Facebook posts that reflected her Christian beliefs on marriage and gender. This ruling not only vindicates her but also sets a crucial precedent for protecting freedom of belief in the workplace.
The Free Speech Union (FSU) played a key role in the case, convincing the Court to adopt arguments that strengthen legal protections against belief-based discrimination. The decision in Higgs v Farmor’s School is being hailed as the most significant of its kind since Maya Forstater’s landmark 2019 ruling, which confirmed that gender-critical views are safeguarded under the Equality Act 2010.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
Beyond its implications for Higgs, this case sends a strong message about how employers should handle complaints related to lawful speech. The Court’s judgment makes it clear that individuals cannot be fired merely because their views offend others, setting an important limitation on employers who may be pressured by ideological activists.
The controversy began in 2018 when a parent at Farmor’s School objected to posts on Higgs’s personal Facebook page. In these posts, she shared concerns about LGBT-inclusive education in primary schools, arguing that children were being “indoctrinated” into accepting certain views on marriage and gender. Though she was amplifying someone else’s words, her posts included urgent warnings such as “PLEASE READ THIS! THEY ARE BRAINWASHING OUR CHILDREN!” and calls to sign a petition against the curriculum changes.
Despite using her maiden name and not identifying herself as a school employee, Higgs was subjected to an internal investigation. The school claimed that her posts could harm its reputation, and her lawyers argue that during questioning, her Christian beliefs were likened to “a pro-Nazi right-wing extremist.” She was ultimately dismissed for allegedly bringing the school into disrepute.
Higgs challenged the decision, asserting that she was fired for her religious beliefs. The school, however, argued that her dismissal was not due to her beliefs themselves but the way she expressed them—a distinction that has increasingly been used to justify punishing employees for their speech.
Initially, the Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled against her, acknowledging that her views were legally protected but upholding the dismissal on the grounds that others might perceive her statements negatively. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) later found that the ET had made significant errors, particularly in failing to determine whether her posts constituted a genuine expression of her beliefs, which would be legally protected. The EAT also criticized the ET for accepting speculative concerns about reputational damage without concrete evidence.
Although the EAT overturned the ruling, it declined to settle the case fully and instead sent it back to the ET for reconsideration. This led Higgs to take her case to the Court of Appeal, supported by the FSU. The Court’s ruling was a resounding victory, with three senior judges unanimously deciding that her dismissal was “unquestionably a disproportionate response.”
The judgment relied on precedent from Page v NHS Trust Development, which established that firing an employee for expressing a belief is only lawful if the belief’s manifestation is objectively offensive and the employer’s response is proportionate. Crucially, this means employers must assess what was actually said rather than relying on subjective interpretations or emotional reactions from third parties.
