Court of Appeal ruling for Kristie Higgs

[FarriersGirl]

Landmark ruling from he Court of Appeal concerning a pastoral administrator sacked from a Gloucestershire school. This case has dragged on for 7 years but she has won. The way she has been treated for expressing her view that the diversity materials being provided at her children's primary school [not the one she worked at] were not appropriate is truly appalling.
Sorry I could not get a share token but maybe someone can oblige.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/kristie-higgs-christian-farmor-school-gloucestershire-mbr55pm7m

Full version of article via archive https://archive.is/mfVCO

Thanks @IwantToRetire
Just a short extract

"Days before the Christmas break seven years ago, senior teachers at a secondary school in Gloucestershire ordered one of their administrators to attend a disciplinary meeting.
Over six and a half hours Kristie Higgs was accused of being a “neo-Nazi extremist” for sharing her beliefs about LGBT relationships in two private social media posts.
Three judges, led by Lord Justice Underhill, said the secondary school’s decision to sack Higgs “was unquestionably a disproportionate response”."

I feel so angry for this woman 😡

Summary of judgment at para 175
"Higgs v Farmor's School [2025] EWCA Civ 109 (12 February 2025)" https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/109.html

7 years! 🤬

Wow.

Good result, but shit.

Victory for common sense and I'm shocked at the terrible HR from the school

Some highlights of this case was not one but two TRA adjacent judges having to recuse themselves from the appeal.

Other recent thread about the Court of Appeal ruling

Kristie Higgs wins belief discrimination case (title edited by MNHQ at request of OP) www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5272986-kirsty-higgs-wins-belief-discrimination-case

A list of earlier threads I collated about the case

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4829514-christian-wins-appeal-against-employment-tribunal

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4996334-school-worker-gross-misconduct-case

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4044598-No-Comment

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4574315-tribunal-tweets-maya-is-tweeting-from-the-kirstie-higgs-recusal-hearing

Wow.
Hopefully they have chosen a new career path??

Good news, and congratulations to Kristie.

But the school’s actions were disgraceful, as was the seven-year wait got justice.

Which part of the LGBT did she have a problem with specifically?

From what I have read she was objecting to materials that her DCs school were proposing to use on diversity and gender identity.

Total over reach. What a world.

Hmmm.
I am actually fine with LGB being normalised, because it's perfectly normal to me. I think the T part needs to be approached differently though, and hate that they're banded together.

She's a Christian and religious people have protections under the law. You don't have to agree with her on gay marriage (I don't) to believe she shouldn't be subjected to a kangaroo court and sacked for retweeting posts about indoctrination of children with adult material on her private social media account.

christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/kristie-higgs-wins-as-court-of-appeal-rules-dismissal-for-free-speech-is-illegal/

This article has the most detailed timeline and overview.

Anyone who objects to same sex marriage deserves to be held to account.

Anyone who objects to same sex marriage deserves to be held to account.

I disagree with any policing of people's private social media for legally permissible speech and opinions. So no, she doesn't deserve to lose her job because of her sincere religious belief, and in fact the school have been "held to account" for their actions, finally.

I stand by my statement.

Homophobia isn't acceptable, no matter what excuse you use to justify it.

Whether it is acceptable or not to hold the opinion that same sex marriage is wrong is not the issue here. The overreach is the issue here.

The homophobia is the main issue imho.

Thankfully for freedom of belief, the court disagrees. Be careful what you wish for.

I wish for no homophobia. Why should I be careful about that exactly?

You didn't understand the point.

My question was in response to understanding your comment.