Christian school worker sacked for calling LGBTQ+ lessons ‘brainwashing’ wins appeal

It’s been fairly settled for a while that it’s dodgy ground to sack someone for stuff they say outside of work unless it’s criminal or a breach of their contract.

The actual important section:

> ‘The school sought to justify her dismissal on the basis that the posts in question were intemperately expressed and included insulting references to the promoters of gender fluidity and “the LGBT crowd” which were liable to damage the school’s reputation in the community: the posts had been reported by one parent and might be seen by others.
>
> ‘However, neither the language of the posts nor the risk of reputational 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.’**

TL;DR

You can rave about anything you want outside of work, and as-long as it’s not done during work you’re apparently fine.

If I had to be brainwashed into being gay or religious I know which I’d pick. 

So what it ultimately came down to was she opposed plans that (from get perspective) clash with her religious beliefs, was fired for it, and won because she was ultimately fired for her religious beliefs, which is illegal discrimination.

Very difficult to feel sorry for the nut job after her little “we’re so persecuted” routine.

The judgment is [here](https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/higgs-v-farmors-school/) and the lead judge gives a handy summary at the end:

> 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.

> However, if the dismissal is motivated not simply by the expression of the belief itself (or third parties’ reaction to it) but by something objectionable in the way in which it was expressed, determined objectively, then … the dismissal will be lawful if, but only if, the employer shows that it was a proportionate response to the objectionable feature – in short, that it was objectively justified…

i.e. you can fire people for expressing their beliefs, but only if you can show *the way they expressed that belief* objectively justifies firing them.

> In the present case the Claimant, who was employed in a secondary school, had posted messages, mostly quoted from other sources, objecting to Government policy on sex education in primary schools because of its promotion of “gender fluidity” and its equation of same-sex marriage with marriage between a man and a woman. It was not in dispute, following the earlier decision of the EAT in *Forstater v GCD Europe*, that the Claimant’s beliefs that gender is binary and that same-sex marriage cannot be equated with marriage between a man and a woman are protected by the Equality Act.

> The school sought to justify her dismissal on the basis that the posts in question were intemperately expressed and included insulting references to the promoters of gender fluidity and “the LGBT crowd” which were liable to damage the school’s reputation in the community: the posts had been reported by one parent and might be seen by others. However, neither the language of the posts nor the risk of reputational 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…

i.e. the school failed to justify their response because the teacher’s comments weren’t offensive enough, and she only posted them on her Facebook page, not more publicly, or in school.

Also, look at that, the *Forstater* decision rearing its head to cause problems again. Finding that prejudicial or hatred-based beliefs are still beliefs and deserve full protection in law.

Yet another instance of somebody being dismissed for bringing their employer into disrepute/breaching work policies. That is initially upheld in court

>In a 2020 ruling, a tribunal ruled that Higgs’ religion is a ‘protected characteristic’ but the school lawfully dismissed her.

Then overturned after groups with… Lets just say less than transparent funding turn on the money taps to bring it back in front of the court until they get the answer they want:

>The ruling was overturned by an appeal tribunal three years later.

>Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Higgs’ favour today.

>Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, a legal aid group that supported Higgs

Its worth noting that ‘Christian Legal Centre’ was the same org that was criticised for it’s involvement in the Alfie Evans and Archie Battersby cases.

[Their Wikipedia page is certainly a read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Centre)

Completely unsurprising to see that groups such as the Free Speech Union, The Association of Christian Teachers [Which has a very dodgy looking website](https://www.christian-teachers.org.uk/) and only seems to publish anything on it when there’s a media narrative. Leading to about one post a year and, of course. The transphobia peddling Sex Matters is involved.

I think children need to be taught to think for themselves and not trust that all authority has children’s best interest at heart. So many examples Cadets leading to Armed forces, Religion, people informing minors of sexuality before they even know what attraction or feelings are.

To help children, make sure they have the finances to have a good education and leave them be and stop letting people recruit them into Ideologies before they can think for themselves.

Without the legal protection most of the above would be seen as predatory but that is not the way the world works. it is what it is.

Sad and very worrying that homophobes and bigots seem to be winning a lot recently.

Well, my primary school made us pray to your imaginary god so fuck you.

(Yes it was a state CofE school, but I already couldn’t go to my closest since it was fee paying and any other primary schools were too far too walk).

Equality Act still let’s religious groups sack people because of their sexuality, maybe we level the playingfield and let public bodies sack fanatics because of their religion.