Press Release

Kristie Higgs wins as Court of Appeal rules dismissal for free speech is illegal

12 February 2025         Issued by: Christian Concern

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 sex 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-sex 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 sex 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”.

The Facebook posts

In 2019, pastoral administrator Mrs Higgs was sacked for gross misconduct by Farmor’s Secondary School in Gloucestershire, and had her Christian beliefs compared to Neo-Nazism, for two Facebook posts.

The posts were made under her maiden name on a private account to her friends, which had no mention of her employer.

The posts were made in response to extreme gender identity books being introduced under the radar to her son’s Church of England primary school, which was not the school where she was employed.

The first post shared a petition against compulsory sex education. The second post shared an article about the dangers of extreme transgender ideology in children’s books being introduced into UK and US schools.

An anonymous complaint was made about the posts to the headteacher which led to Mrs Higgs facing a six-hour interrogation, being investigated, and eventually sacked for allegedly bringing the school into disrepute.

Mrs Higgs launched legal action claiming she had been harassed, directly discriminated against, and had her rights breached under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

The legal battle that followed has been plagued by delay and controversy with repeated recusals and evidence of transgender, Stonewall and extreme sex education activists sitting as lay magistrates on the presiding panels.

Kristie: ‘A victory for freedom’

Responding to the Court of Appeal decision, Mrs Higgs said: “In October 2018, I shared two private Facebook posts to raise awareness of the gender ideology that was going to be taught to young children in schools as part of statutory Relationships and Sex Education.

“Because of those posts, I lost my job. Today, after nearly 7 years, the Court of Appeal has finally put that right.

“Expressing biblical Christian teaching on gender and sexuality may appear to be offensive to those who hold the opposite views, but as today’s judgment signals, Christians have a right to express their beliefs publicly.

“This is not just about me. Too many Christians have suffered discipline or marginalisation at their work because of their Christian faith.

“I’m thankful to Andrea Williams, Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre.

“Without them and everyone who supports them, I could never have come this far.

“I’m also deeply grateful to my family and all those who have been by my side and those who stand for truth.

“But most of all, I give all the praise, glory and honour to my God. It is by his grace and mercy that I stand here today.

“I pray that today will prove to be a landmark day for Christian freedoms and free speech.

“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.

“Expressing biblical truth is not discriminatory. It is an expression of love and of light.

“Today’s judgment is as important for free speech as it is for freedom of religion. Employers will no longer be able to rely on their theoretical fears of reputational damage or subjective concerns about causing offence to discipline employees for exercising their fundamental freedom to express their deeply held beliefs.

“The Court of Appeal has now set a clear standard to protect people like me, and the countless other Christians in this nation, to express their beliefs without fear of losing their jobs.”

‘Ideological censorship illegal’

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Free speech and religious liberty are not yet extinguished from the English law. The outcome of Kristie’s case sets an important legal precedent for many years to come.

“The Court of Appeal has confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship at workplace is illegal, and any employer who tramples upon their employees’ right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion breaks the law of the land.

“This is a great victory for Kristie, who lost her job and livelihood for doing no more than expressing her dismay at the nonsensical ideas of gender-fluidity being taught to her child at a Church of England primary school.

“This is also a victory for the many others who went before Kristie, such as Victoria Wasteney and, the late Richard Page, who were also dismissed for their Christian beliefs in the years past, and sought justice in vain. Yet, at a stroke of a pen, decades of unfair decisions which denied justice to Christians have now been re-interpreted by the Court of Appeal and explained away as no more than exceptions which prove the rule.

“This decision proves that our work at the Christian Legal Centre in all those cases over all those years has not been in vain. For all those who stood with us through much darker days of our 16-year-old battle for freedom, it is now time to rejoice and give thanks to God.”

Further background

In October 2018, Mrs Higgs shared two posts on her private Facebook page under her maiden name. Her profile did not mention and had no links to her employer.

Mrs Higgs had made the posts after discovering that the Church of England (CofE) school attended by her child (not the school where she was employed) planned, under the radar, to introduce ‘No Outsiders’ books on confusing and harmful gender identity. The books included ‘My princess boy’ and ‘Red: A crayon’s story’.

The first post encouraged friends and family to sign a petition challenging the government’s plans to introduce Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) to children in primary schools. The petition was not created by Mrs Higgs.

The post flagged that a government consultation on plans to make RSE mandatory for children as young as four was coming to a close. It asked its readers to sign a nationwide petition calling on the government to uphold the rights of parents to have children educated in line with their religious beliefs.

A similar petition was subsequently signed by over 115,000 people and was debated in Parliament.

In the second post, Mrs Higgs shared an article from Judybeth.com on the rise of transgender ideology in children’s books in American schools and added her own comment: “This is happening in our primary schools now.”

The article critiqued the same LGBT ‘No Outsiders’ books promoting transgenderism to children in her son’s school.

Since Mrs Higgs made these posts, her concerns have been vindicated.

In 2023, then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak ordered an urgent review into the extreme and sexualised materials being used in RSE.

In December 2023, the government released long awaited draft transgender guidance for schools which said: “Other pupils, parents and teachers may hold protected religious or other beliefs that conflict with the decision that the school or college has made, these are legitimate views that must be respected.”

The guidance adds that schools and colleges now have specific legal duties that are framed by a child’s biological sex.

One anonymous complaint

Mrs Higgs has said that her aim at the time in 2018 had been to raise awareness among parents of the Government’s education plans and the transgender books being taught in primary schools.

However, one anonymous complaint about Mrs Higgs’ posts were made to the headteacher of Farmor’s Secondary School, Matthew Evans, where she had worked as a pastoral administrator without complaint for seven years.

The email said: “…a member of your staff who works directly with children has been posting homophobic and prejudiced views against the lgbt community on Facebook … [and] that this individual may exert influence over the vulnerable pupils that may end up in isolation for whatever reason. I find these views offensive and I am sure that when you look into it, you will understand my concern. …”

Mr Evans responded to the complainant saying it would be helpful to forward screenshots of “any similarly offensive posts”. The complainant emailed back, attaching screenshots of other Facebook posts made by the claimant, further explaining:

“I’m aware that not everyone has liberal views like myself but I do feel that people working directly with children should refrain from posting this type of view on social media. I know of several children at Farmors who might fit into the category of person your staff member seems to find so obnoxious, friends of my children even. …”

Lawyers representing Mrs Higgs have since argued in court that the ‘stereotyping’ of Mrs Higgs’ beliefs by the anonymous complainant was far more discriminatory than anything she had posted.

Six-hour interrogation

Mrs Higgs was subsequently suspended and, shaking and tearful, was ordered to leave the school premises.

An investigation report followed which recommended she be dismissed for gross misconduct because:
“By choosing to make the posts and stating that she believes in God’s Law and not Man’s Law, I believe that, on the balance of probability, this means that she holds views that are discriminatory against groups of people with protected characteristics.”

The report added that: “On the balance of probability this would be interpreted that she holds illegal discriminatory views that are not in line with the Equality Act 2010 and therefore has breached the Conduct Policy”.

Sacked for gross misconduct, Mrs Higgs was accused of ‘illegal discrimination’, ‘serious inappropriate use of social media’, and ‘online comments that could bring the school into disrepute and damage the reputation of the school.’

No evidence has ever been found that her posts brought the school into disrepute.

Subjected to a six-hour interrogation during a disciplinary hearing, Mrs Higgs’ posts, and the Christian beliefs that had shaped them, were described as akin to that of a ‘pro-Nazi right-wing extremist.’

After launching legal action, an Employment Tribunal ruling in October 2020, however, found against Mrs Higgs, tenuously judging that the school had been right to dismiss her as someone reading her posts could have perceived and concluded that she was ‘transphobic’ and ‘homophobic.’

Lawyers appealed this ruling, arguing that it ‘erred in law’, was ‘perverse’ and that: “no reasonable and informed person, having read the [Mrs Higgs’] post, could conclude anything other than the posts were a critique of a certain approach to education, whether held by members of the LGBT community or non-LGBT secular liberals.”

Double recusal

Mrs Higgs’ appeal of this ruling and pursuit of justice has faced a series of unusual and, at times, unprecedented obstacles.

In July 2022, Mrs Higgs’ appeal was postponed after Mrs Justice Eady was forced to recuse trans activist, Edward Lord, from sitting as a lay member on the presiding panel.

It transpired that Lord, associated with Mermaids and Stonewall, had made a series of public statements relating to key issues in Mrs Higgs’ case, including the extent to which individuals should be restricted from making comments or statements regarding LGBT ideology, especially transgenderism.

In January 2023, it was also revealed in the media that senior members of the CofE and the judiciary had met at an undisclosed date to discuss Mrs Higgs’ case. The motivations, reasoning and details for such a high-level meeting are not known.

Lightning struck twice in March 2023, when in the lead up to the rescheduled appeal hearing following Edward Lord’s recusal, it was discovered that Andrew Morris, the former Assistant General Secretary of National Education Union (NEU), would be presiding as a lay member.

Under Mr Morris’ watch, during the time frame that the government is set to urgently review its ‘inappropriate’ sex education guidance, the NEU consistently took a strong position in favour of making both relationship and sex education mandatory in primary schools.

The NEU at this time was also a national leader in encouraging teaching children at primary schools about same-sex relationships and transgenderism.

Another activist on panel unearthed

It can now also be revealed that at Mrs Higgs’ original employment tribunal hearing in September 2020, which she lost, another activist was on the presiding panel as a lay tribunal member.

Evidence online reveals that Mrs Debbie England, described as a Human Resources Specialist, is a Stonewall advocate.

A presentation by Sums Consulting for Higher Education, called ‘Recruiting the Right Team’, features Mrs England and says:

‘Debbie led UWE’s equality and diversity team, during her tenure UWE achieved highest Higher Education Sector ranking in Stonewall index and Athena Swan accreditation at both University wide and departmental levels.’

From 2013-22, Mrs England was also an advisor Common Purpose, a non-profit that promotes equality and diversity and the advancement of the LGBTQI+ community, with promotional ‘about us’ videos that include the Pride flag.

If known at the time, a recusal application would have been highly likely.

This is a recurring theme, with a series of recusals over a ‘perception of bias’ in other high-profile Christian freedom cases this year, with one leading to a formal rebuke.

Court of Appeal

Following the recusals in Mrs Higgs’ case, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mrs Justice Eady, was forced to hear the appeal ‘judge alone’.

Justice Eady subsequently granted Mrs Higgs permission to appeal the original tribunal ruling, but instead of allowing all of her grounds of appeal to proceed, she denied her an outright win by ruling that the case should be remitted back to the Employment Tribunal to be heard again.

Higgs’ lawyers appealed this ruling with Rt. Hon. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing earlier this year allowing the case to proceed on all grounds to the Court of Appeal.

ENDS

Court of Appeal judgment: https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Judgment-Kristie-Higgs-20250212.pdf

Legal summary analysis

Summary: The central holding of the case is that where an employer wishes to discipline an employee for how they manifest a religious or philosophical belief, the test must be an objective one based on behaviour which is clearly inappropriate and any discipline must be proportionate. What this means is that the employer’s subjective apprehension of what might be objectionable is largely irrelevant.

Reasoning:

1. The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act. PARAGRAPH 175.
2. However, if dismissal is motivated not by the expression of the belief itself, or a third party’s reaction to it, but that the manner in which the belief was expressed was objectionably inappropriate, a proportionate sanction of the employee could be objectionably justified. The Court reasoned that to find otherwise, would put employers in an untenable position where they could not discipline an employee for manifesting a belief, no matter how inappropriately or offensively the belief was expressed. PARAGRAPH 74
3. That Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, requiring that primary and secondary legislation, as far as is practicable, be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, allows for the qualification of how religious and philosophical beliefs are manifested. This part of the Court’s judgment, while more technical, was an important clarification of the court’s earlier jurisprudence. S. 10 of the Equality Act, defining the protected characteristic of religion or belief, does not itself mention expressions or other manifestations of belief. The Court nevertheless holds that the protection of such manifestations is inferred. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, comparatively, protects the right to hold a belief absolutely. Article 9(2) of the Convention, however, subjects the right to manifest religion or belief to qualification. That qualification allows for interference with the right to manifest religion or belief where doing so is prescribed by law (in the context of employment, this is represented by the rights enjoyed by the employer vis-a-viz the employment contract); that interference is done in pursuit of a legitimate aim, including protecting the rights and freedoms of others; and that the measures taken to interfere with religion or belief are a proportionate means of achieving the desired outcome. Therefore, while the Equality Act provides no justification for discriminating against someone because of their religion or belief; where the interference relates not to the protected characteristic, but to how it is being manifested, then the Article 9(2) proportionality assessment becomes melded with S. 13 of the Equality Act and direct discrimination. PARAGRAPHS 81-97
4. The Court then ruled on whether Kristie’s Facebook posts amounted to a protected manifestation of Christian belief. Lord Justice Underhill confirmed that views about homosexuality and gender identity ideology that flow from Christian belief, are protected by both the Equality Act and Convention. The Court therefore accepted the beliefs being manifested were protected and moved onto a proportionality assessment. When undertaking a Convention compliant proportionality assessment, the court must weigh all the competing interests, including factoring in the fundamental importance of freedom of religion and belief. In Kristie’s case, this meant unpacking the deficiencies in the School’s defence. Underhill LJ first rejected the respondent’s contention that dismissal was justified on reputation grounds. He reasoned that even after the anonymous complaint the school received about the posts, that no reputational damage had occurred or was likely to occur. The Court factored in that the posts were limited to only Kristie’s Facebook friends, and that the account was linked to her maiden name.  Moreover, it found, that even if the public was aware of the posts, that it was clear that the views were those of Kristie, and not the school. Underhill LJ also rejected the school’s contention that someone with Kristie’s views could promote a homophobic or transphobic message to pupils or treat them differently because they were homosexual or identified as trans. The Court ruled that there was absolutely no evidence that any such behaviour occurred, making the school’s subjective concerns about the objectionable nature of the posts all the more unfounded. In the words of Underhill LJ: “neither the language of the posts nor the risk of serious damage were capable of justifying the Claimant’s dismissal in circumstances where she had not said anything of the kind at work or displayed any discriminatory attitudes in her treatment of pupils.” PARAGRAPHS 159-163

Image of Kristie outside Court:

*Images include Kristie flanked by other Christians who have been part of other high-profile Christian freedoms cases. 

https://mcusercontent.com/bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35/images/a0f8ffa9-89b2-d6fe-f7b6-36c0d8bccce0.jpeg

https://mcusercontent.com/bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35/images/0564ad12-76d9-7f05-c8ab-d2aee003d698.jpeg

https://mcusercontent.com/bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35/images/c5773cdf-b9eb-64fd-6ee5-d031d70ace03.jpeg

Images of Facebook posts:

Facebook post on Relationships and Sex Education:

https://mcusercontent.com/bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35/images/9c25c26e-8636-4f58-a0c3-12cb1ed01fde.jpg

Facebook post on transgender ideology:

https://mcusercontent.com/bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35/images/d161af82-cd6d-4699-b6dc-18b7257b2a5b.jpg

Video interview: 
https://youtu.be/5a_CcsaxKMY?feature=shared

Image of Kristie Higgs:

https://mcusercontent.com/bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35/_compresseds/115adc47-db9e-7063-1a2a-1f3911be7459.jpg

Edward Lord recusal judgment 2022 https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Judgment-Higgs-EAT-Lord-Recusal-220705.pdf

Andrew Morris recusal https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mrs-kristie-higgs-v-1-farmors-school-2-the-archbishops-council-of-the-church-of-england-2023-eat-45

Employment Tribunal judgment, October 2020: https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Judgment-Kristie-Higgs-ET-201007.pdf