Higgs v Farmor's School [2025] EWCA Civ 109

In brief

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of a school pastoral assistant who had been dismissed after sharing social media posts critical of gender-identity teaching. The CA held that the Employment Tribunal had misdirected itself on the applicable legal test and remitted the case for reconsideration. The Court confirmed that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 (following Forstater), and established a structured framework for assessing whether restricting the manifestation of those beliefs in the workplace was proportionate. The CA did not finally determine whether the dismissal was lawful — it set the framework and sent the case back to the ET to apply it correctly.

Key provisions

• Holding a belief is absolutely protected; manifesting it is not — manifestation can be proportionately restricted: Holding a belief is absolutely protected under Article 9 ECHR and s.10 EA2010. Manifesting that belief, however, can be proportionately restricted by an employer.
• holding-1 — Employers can restrict belief manifestation where it undermines dignity, professional standards, or confidence in the organisation: Holding a belief is absolutely protected under Article 9 ECHR and s.10 EA2010. Manifesting that belief, however, can be proportionately restricted by an employer.
• The test is proportionality — not whether the belief itself is objectionable, but whether the specific manifestation in context was proportionate to restrict: The test is proportionality — not whether the belief itself is objectionable, but whether the specific manifestation in context was proportionate to restrict.
• holding-2 — Social media posts made outside work can still engage workplace duties depending on the role, audience, and connection to the employer: Employers can restrict belief manifestation where it undermines dignity, professional standards, or confidence in the organisation.
• The distinction between belief and conduct is central — organisations should regulate behaviour and impact, not adjudicate belief: The distinction between belief and conduct is central. Organisations should regulate behaviour and impact, not adjudicate belief.

When relevant

Any scenario involving belief-based objections to trans inclusion, pronoun use refusal, social media conduct by staff expressing gender-critical views, or where an employer restricts how an employee manifests beliefs in the workplace. The key principle: holding a belief is absolutely protected, but manifesting it can be proportionately restricted where it undermines dignity, professional standards, or confidence. Directly relevant to: pronoun policies, staff conduct codes, social media policies, competing rights between s.7 (gender reassignment) and s.10 (belief), regulatory fitness-to-practise investigations. Use alongside MACKERETH-EAT-2022 and FORSTATER-EAT-2021.