Discrimination in the workplace has become a hot topic in recent years, and employers are finding themselves in a difficult position when it comes to ensuring they are upholding their obligation to prevent it; especially in cases of competing protected characteristics.
As of 12th February 2025, the Court of Appeal has finally issued its anxiously awaited judgement in the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School.
The Higgs v Farmor case centred around the dismissal of the Claimant who, after working for the school for six years, was dismissed for gross misconduct following a complaint from a parent about posts on the Claimant’s Facebook account – which expressed criticism of the teaching of same-sex marriage and gender identity in primary schools. After an internal investigation, the School found that the Claimant’s posts were in breach of the School’s Code of Conduct and amounted to gross misconduct, resulting in her dismissal with immediate effect.
The Claimant in the Higgs vs Farmor’s School case brought claims for discrimination and harassment against her employer on the grounds of religion or belief. While the Claimant is a Christian and her beliefs were founded in her religious background, her case did not centre around discrimination for her Christian views as a whole but rather the certain beliefs she held in regards to same-sex marriage and gender identity. In the first instance, these claims were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal, who found that, while her beliefs were protected under section 10 of the Equality Act, the dismissal was due to the School’s concerns over how people would perceive her views as amounting to homophobic and transphobic and the effect this may have on Farmor’s School’s reputation, rather than the holding of the beliefs themselves. The claimant appealed this decision.
In their ruling, the Court of Appeal set out that the dismissal was not justified and amounted to unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. While the School had tried to justify the dismissal on the basis that the posts were likely to damage the School’s reputation due to the way they could be perceived, the Court found that the sanction of dismissal was not proportional to these concerns and as such, the dismissal amounted to discrimination. The Court set out that dismissing an employee solely because they have expressed a religious or any other protected belief which the employer objects to will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act. However, if the employer also provided reasoning for the dismissal as a result of not just the expression of the belief in itself but also in the way in which it was expressed, and they could show that dismissal was a proportionate response, the dismissal would be lawful.
Dealing with discrimination in the workplace should be at the forefront of employers’ minds. As explored in this case, it can often be confusing. However, the consequences of acting incorrectly can have disastrous consequences for a company – with compensation for a successful claim currently unclaimed. Employers should ensure that they have the appropriate anti-discrimination policies in place and are taking legal advice and guidance where necessary.
Here at Whitehead Monckton, our expert employment law specialists are well-equipped to help you manoeuvre the challenges of dealing with discrimination in the workplace. Whether it is providing you with more information or giving you guidance on next steps, our team is always willing to help. To find out more, feel free to explore our website or contact us to talk to one of our team members today.
