THE case of a faculty employee who was sacked in 2019 for her social-media posts about problems with gender and sexuality continued last week, in a two-day hearing on the Royal Courts of Justice, in London.
In 2018, the varsity employee, Kristie Higgs, wrote on Facebook that proposals to show children about LGBTQ relationships in sex-education lessons amounted to “brainwashing”.
She alleged that “expressing and teaching fundamental Christian beliefs, regarding the creation of men and girls and marriage, will in practice turn out to be forbidden — because they conflict with the brand new morality and are seen as indoctrination into unacceptable religious bigotry.”
In one other post, she described the concept of gender fluidity as a “perverted vision”.
In 2019, after the posts were delivered to the eye of Farmor’s School, Fairford, in Gloucestershire, Mrs Higgs was dismissed from her position as the varsity’s pastoral administrator and work-experience manager.
In 2020, an employment tribunal ruled that Mrs Higgs had been lawfully dismissed, as the choice had been made on the premise of her use of social media quite than close to her religious beliefs (News, 30 October 2020).
In 2023, nevertheless, the Employment Appeals Tribunal ordered a latest tribunal. The judge, Mrs Justice Eady, said that the tribunal had “failed to interact with the character” of Mrs Higgs’s rights, “which included the precise to carry and to specific views on controversial matters of public interest” (News, 20 June 2023).
The judgment made reference to an intervention by the Archbishops’ Council, which pointed to the “Pastoral Principles” on “disagreeing well” within the Church of England.
The appeals tribunal ordered a latest employment tribunal to reconsider the case. In the hearing within the Court of Appeal Civil Division last week, Mrs Higgs challenged the choice to order a fresh tribunal.
BBC News reported this week that Mrs Higgs’s lawyer, Richard O’Dair, had asked judges in written submissions to uphold a claim of illegal discrimination against the varsity.
In his submission, Mr O’Dair said that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Mrs Higgs had been discriminated against due to her beliefs. He argued that nothing within the posts may very well be deemed homophobic or transphobic.
Submissions on behalf of the varsity accepted that “fuller reasons” were required for Mrs Higgs’s dismissal, and agreed with Mrs Justice Eady that the “appropriate course” was for the tribunal process to be rerun.
Mrs Higgs is being supported in her case by the Christian Legal Centre, which is an element of the campaigning organisation Christian Concern.
Last week’s hearings took place on Wednesday and Thursday. A judgment is predicted in writing in the end.
