"School worker" gross misconduct case

[Squidaddle]

Spotted this one today which the headline/defense used was about religious belief, but ultimately looks to stem from comments/concerns made on social media about relationship & sex education and transgender ideology, which were annonymously reported to the school.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68126994

Theres a bit in there about previously being found to have been lawfully dismissed despite recognising that her religious beliefs were a protected characteristic, so I'm wondering if there's more to it than being a straightforward gender ideology type case?

Mrs Higgs shared and commented on posts which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school.

Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, which is a series of books teaching the Equality Act in primary schools.

Mrs Higgs, who was posting on Facebook under her maiden name, shared two posts in October 2018 to about 100 friends.

One of the posts referred to "brainwashing our children".

An anonymous complaint was made to the school and Mrs Higgs was suspended.
Then after a disciplinary hearing she was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Her case went to a tribunal in 2020 which she lost and then appealed in 2022, which she won in June 2023.

So she was sacked for disagreeing with the no outsiders programme! Maybe because I'm tired but how does the Christian angle fit in? My brain has stopped working

There are various discussions about this case here, but maybe not a whole independent thread. It's particularly significant as two TRA members were forced (neither offered) to recuse themselves from the tribunal panel. The EAT win is also significant as it's on the same level as Forstater and Mackereth.

The story is not new, I suspect it's being reported as such as GC/belief cases are in the news.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/christian-facebook-lgbt-church-of-england-gloucestershire-b2358978.html

The first tribunal happened before Maya Forstater's EAT win.

Judgment

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/648c209bb32b9e0012a9691c/MrsKristieeHiggsvv1FarmorrsSchooll2ArchbishopsCouncilloftheeChurchoffEngland2023EATT_89.pdf

So, she's appealed and won the appeal but does that mean it goes back to ET - reading the judgement it seems to imply that is the case?

@Boiledbeetle I think it is that she feels that what was being taught ran counter to her beliefs as a Christian. (I too am a Christian, but my analysis of the sorry mess things have arrived at is via biology and therefore reality-based - rather than via theology, which would be faith-based.)

So, she's appealed and won the appeal but does that mean it goes back to ET - reading the judgement it seems to imply that is the case?

Yes. The sole judge (no others were available as they had to recuse) stipulated that no new evidence was to be submitted on both sides, that it would go back before the same tribunal and they needed to consider the case again in the light of her judgment.

Tribunal tweets coverage here

https://open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltweets/p/higgs-v-farmors-school-employment?r=7vhv8&utmmedium=ios&utmm_campaign=post