For her sake, obviously, I hope they don't appeal but it would be good for the cause if they did.
Just finished reading the full judgement and I think it's more broadly applicable than Maya's because it concerns treatment by the employer, not merely a termination. This employer took a lot of actions (in addition to suspending Rachel) that limited her ability to hold private views and that harassed her for her views. It's also notable that the regulator is on the hook and also that the employer is found to need to act fairly, even where the regulator is taking time to reach a decision.
It would be wonderful to have those as binding precident and I think this case is so egregious that its the perfect test case (from our PoV).