The seven year saga of Kristie Higgs is finally over: she has been totally vindicated
Last week the Supreme Court rejected the application of Farmor’s School in Fairfield, Gloucestershire, to appeal the Court of Appeal’s unanimous judgment in Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School. Thus ends the 7-year saga of Kristie Higgs, who had been famously dismissed from her school for gross misconduct for private Facebook posts she made which were critical of LGBT and transgender education being made mandatory in all English schools.
On 12 February 2025, in a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal ruled that Kristie’s dismissal was an act of direct discrimination. In coming to its judgement, Lord Justice Underhill underlined the importance of protecting free speech on sensitive issues of public importance and protecting speech for what it says, not how it may be interpreted by individuals with dissenting and emotive viewpoints on the subject matter. The Court further stated that where an employer justifies dismissal on the basis of reputational damage, they must prove that such damage has actually taken place.
Kristie, a school assistant, was dismissed by Farmor’s School for Facebook posts she made on her private account about statutory RSE (Relationships and Sex Education) and LGBT education. The account did not mention her employer, used her maiden name, and the privacy settings were set so that only her friends could view the posts.
Kristie, a Christian, shared two posts adding her own commentary to the shares.
The posts were made in 2018 as the debate around RSE was at its peak and expressed concern about the indoctrinating effect of LGBT education and gender identity ideology on young impressionable children.
The Christian Legal Centre has been supporting Kristie throughout her odyssey.
Initially suspended following an anonymous complaint about her posts, Kristie was questioned by her employer for 6 hours, during which time her views were compared to those of a pro-Nazi right wing extremist. Her trial was marred by procedural irregularities and bias. On two separate occasions, the case was postponed because evidence was found that lay members of the panel had withheld material information about their views on LGBT education in advance of the trial. As a result, both members were recused by the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Judge Eady, for apparent bias and the case went ahead with a single judge sitting. These irregularities alone have changed the way employment cases are done, with claimants now being able to choose a panel without lay members sitting.
Discrimination against Christians in the United Kingdom, particularly in the area of employment, has become commonplace
Eventually, the Court of Appeal, the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, issued a full throttled and powerful judgment in Kristie’s favour. While the defendant applied to the Supreme Court on 4 grounds, Lords Reed and Hamblin and Lady Sinclair rejected their application finding that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear 3 of the 4 grounds and that the 4th ground did not raise an arguable question of law.
What does this mean moving forward
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal means that Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School is now settled case law. Since the Supreme Court did not rule on the case, it also means that the Court of Appeal’s ruling is now the leading precedent on questions of free speech and employee discipline for expressing matters of faith on private social media feeds.
The case brought to the national forefront the ongoing tension between the promotion of LGBT culture and the freedom to manifest deeply held Christian beliefs. While Christian beliefs were the mainstay only a few years ago, so called progressive campaigning voices have become a heckler’s veto, demonising even the most innocuous expressions of Biblical morality on matters such as marriage, sexual practice and biological realities. Not surprisingly, the same tactics were used against Kristie, where her views were linked with “homophobia”.
Recalling the Ngole case, another Court of Appeal precedent where Christian Legal Centre supported the Claimant, the Court noted that the supposed “homophobia” that Kristie harboured was never borne out in her six years of work at the school and was simply not substantiated.
The Court ultimately found that the posts were not grossly offensive and that they were a genuine manifestation of Kristie’s Christian beliefs. Nor was Kristie wrong for refusing to take the posts down as they were an expression of her deeply held beliefs and not an inappropriate manifestation of her faith.
The “Higgs’ Test”
The technical details of Kristie’s Court of Appeal judgment has essentially written into the Equality Act a new test which courts will be required to follow. Lord Justice Underhill reasoned that while the Equality Act does not allow for the defence of justification for direct discrimination, it would nevertheless be compatible with S. 3 of the Human Rights Act to make the expression of religious beliefs in an employment context a qualified right. This means two things: when an employer disciplines an employee because of a protected religious belief they have expressed, no justification for discrimination is allowed; however, if the manner in which the belief is expressed is so objectively inappropriate as to justify discipline, then the employer must objectively weigh all of the competing interests involved, taking action only to the extent that it would be proportionate to do so.
The judgment remedies an ongoing clarity issue in the field of religious discrimination which began with the Richard Page case, another Christian Legal Centre supported case. Richard had been both a sitting magistrate and a non-executive member of an NHS Trust. He was removed from both positions because of alleged bias for believing that a child always does better with a mother and father as parents. He was asked about his case before the national media and this was used as a basis for his dismissal from the Trust on the grounds that his actions were “objectionably inappropriate.” Sadly, Ricard passed away before the case could be fully litigated. The Court of Appeal judgment in that case had thereafter been used with impunity to label any expression of Christian belief which went against the cultural grain as inappropriate and therefore justification for dismissal.
In Higgs, the Court reaffirmed that dismissing an employee because of a deeply held religious belief they have expressed is direct discrimination. Employers have no defence of justification under such circumstances. However, where dismissal is not for the content of the belief itself, but how it was said, the Court of Appeal has clarified that the burden for dismissal is still a particular high bar. Courts must look at what was said, how it was said, and any relevant context behind the manifestation of the belief in question. The subjective feelings or sensitivities of a complainant or employer are to be set aside by the courts when analysing the impugned expression of belief.
When the Court of Appeal looked at the facts of Kristie’s case objectively and with all of the relevant context, it held that her dismissal was “unquestionably a disproportionate response.” Lord Justice Underhill went so far as to question whether treating her Facebook posts and the anonymous complaint as a disciplinary matter was even necessary, much less so her suspension.
What this means for Christians
Intolerance and discrimination against Christians in the United Kingdom, particularly in the area of employment, has become commonplace. Christian Concern receives around a thousand enquiries annually from people who feel that they have been discriminated against or disadvantaged because of their Christian faith or beliefs.
The Higgs case is a major victory for Christians, and for free speech.The practical effect is that employers will now need to think long and hard before they discipline an employee for expressing deeply held beliefs, especially outside or work and on social media. If they do not, a court will force them to think long and hard about their censorship of lawful speech.
The judgment sent shockwaves through the legal world, with some progressive commentators lamenting about people now being able to say what they actually believe on issues which are important to us all. While those voices had their day in the sun, Kristie Higgs has put an end to the heckler’s veto in employment law, making speech freer for everyone. Christians in particular, can now feel better in that they can enjoy their free speech rights on par with the rest of the nation. For that, we are grateful to Kristie Higgs for her resilience and her courage.
If you’ve enjoyed listening to this article, why not subscribe to The Critic? Right now we’re offering 5 issues for just £25.
