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. HIGGS WON: the CA did not send the dismissal question back to the tribunal — it decided it, holding that the ET 'would be bound to find that the Claimant's dismissal was not objectively justified and accordingly that it constituted unlawful discrimination' [157] and substituting a finding that she succeeds on that claim [169], [174]. Dismissal was 'unquestionably a disproportionate response' [158] — and the Court reached that conclusion even on the assumption, made without deciding, that the School was entitled to take objection to the posts. Only remedy was remitted [169]; a secondary complaint about the disciplinary process was formally remitted but Underhill LJ 'strongly discourage[d] that course' [168]. The Court also confirmed that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 (following Forstater), and endorsed a structured framework for assessing whether restricting the manifestation of those beliefs in the workplace is proportionate.

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.