Introduction
In today’s diverse and interconnected world, clashes in beliefs arise in various settings, including the workplace. The challenge for employers lies in striking a delicate balance between respecting employees’ rights to express their beliefs and maintaining a harmonious and inclusive working environment. In this blog post, we explore the key principles arising from the case of Higgs v. Farmor’s School.
The facts
The case involved a dispute between a teacher (Mrs Higgs) and her employer (Farmor’s School), a secondary school in the UK. Mrs Higgs made posts on Facebook, expressing her views on same-sex relationships, same-sex marriage and gender fluidity. A parent who had seen the posts complained that Mrs Higgs held homophobic and prejudiced views against the LGBTQ+ community. Following an investigation and disciplinary hearing, Mrs Higgs was dismissed for failing to comply with the school’s code of conduct. Mrs Higgs subsequently filed a claim for religious discrimination and harassment, arguing that her freedom of expression and religious beliefs were being unlawfully curtailed.
The Employment Tribunal held that Mrs Higgs had not been discriminated against or harassed because of her beliefs, which were a protected characteristic, but that she had been dismissed because the school felt that the language she used in her posts might lead someone who read them to conclude that she had homophobic and transphobic views. Mrs Higgs appealed this decision and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld her appeal and sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal to reconsider its decision.
Principles from Higgs v. Farmor’s School
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in this case highlights several key principles that will help guide tribunals in assessing when it is proportionate and justifiable for an employer to interfere with an individual’s right to express their beliefs. These principles therefore also provide valuable lessons for employers facing similar challenges:
- The importance of respect for human rights: The judgment emphasised an individual’s right to express their beliefs, irrespective of whether or not that belief is popular or may offend.
- The impact on others: Tribunals must consider the potential impact of an individual’s beliefs on their colleagues – rights to express those beliefs may not be protected where the law permits restriction of that expression in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
- Proportionality: Any such restrictions on an employee’s expression of beliefs should be proportionate to achieve the objective in question – employers should consider whether the restriction is connected to the objective, whether a less intrusive measure would be sufficient and, overall, employers must aim to balance the severity of the restriction against the importance of the objective while recognising the right to express unpopular beliefs.
Conclusion
If an employee’s expression of beliefs creates an unwelcoming or hostile environment for others, an employer may be justified in taking action to address the situation. However, unless beliefs are extreme, employees will generally be entitled to express them. It then comes down to balancing how they expressed those beliefs with the impact on others. Navigating this delicate balance requires open dialogue, clear policies and a commitment to fostering understanding and empathy among all members of the workforce.
