Court of Appeal. Religious discrimination. Social media. Freedom of expression. Dismissal.

The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of a school employee for Facebook posts opposing gender fluidity and same-sex marriage teaching in schools constituted unlawful religious discrimination. While dismissal for inappropriate expression of protected beliefs may be lawful if objectively justified, the Court found dismissal disproportionate in this case.

Background

The Claimant was dismissed from her role as pastoral administrator after an anonymous complaint about her Facebook posts opposing teaching about gender fluidity and same-sex marriage in schools. The posts included re-posted content using provocative language. The ET initially dismissed her discrimination claim. It was remitted by the EAT. The Claimant appealed, arguing that the EAT should have found discrimination without remitting to the ET.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that:

• Dismissal solely for expressing protected beliefs was unlawful direct discrimination
• However, dismissal for an objectionable manner of expressing them may be lawful if objectively justified
• Justification requires proportionality and consideration of rights under ECHR Articles 9 and 10
• The School failed to justify dismissal because:
  • The language used was not grossly offensive
  • Posts were on the Claimant’s private Facebook with limited circulation
  • There was no evidence that the Claimant expressed views at work or would treat pupils differently
  • Dismissal disproportionate given six years’ unblemished service

Endnote

A landmark ruling balancing employees’ rights to manifest religious beliefs with employers’ reputational interests. Emphasizes that dismissal requires clear evidence that the expression was inappropriate and that a proportionate response is necessary.

• Employers cannot dismiss merely for the expression of protected beliefs
• The response must be proportionate to the actual language used, not assumptions about beliefs
• Social media context and evidence of workplace impact was highly relevant
• Limited circulation and absence of evidence of discriminatory conduct were significant factors

Read the full judgment: Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109