The case of Higgs v Farmor’s School is pivotal in understanding the intersection of the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly in the context of protected beliefs in the workplace. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) intervened in this case to provide expert advice on the interpretation and application of these Acts. This case is expected to set a precedent for how employers can handle third-party complaints about employees' personal views shared on social media, without engaging in discriminatory practices.
The legal framework
Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from discrimination based on protected characteristics, which include religion or belief. This Act is crucial in cases where an employee's beliefs might conflict with workplace policies or the rights of others. The Act requires employers to balance these rights carefully, ensuring that any action taken is proportionate and justified.
Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, protecting rights such as freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 9), and freedom of expression (Article 10). These rights are qualified, meaning they can be restricted if necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The case of Higgs v Farmor’s School examines these rights in the context of employment and social media use.
Case details and implications
Background
Mrs. Higgs, a pastoral administrator at Farmor’s School, was dismissed following complaints about her social media posts, which were perceived as homophobic and transphobic. She claimed this was discrimination based on her Christian beliefs. The Employment Tribunal initially dismissed her claims, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the tribunal had not properly considered whether her dismissal was due to the manifestation of her beliefs or the manner in which they were expressed.
Proportionality and justification
The EAT emphasised the need for a proportionality assessment to determine whether the school's actions were justified. This involves considering whether the limitation on Mrs. Higgs' rights was necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim, such as maintaining an inclusive environment for all students.
Practical guidance for employers
Employers must navigate the complex interplay between protecting employees' rights to express their beliefs and ensuring these expressions do not infringe on the rights of others. Key considerations include:
Content and tone: Assess the content and tone of the employee's expression to determine if it could reasonably be perceived as offensive or harmful.
Audience and impact: Consider the likely audience and the potential impact on the workplace environment and the employer's reputation.
Proportionality: Ensure any restrictions or disciplinary actions are the least intrusive measures necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
Additional considerations
The outcome of Higgs v Farmor’s School will provide further clarity on how employers can balance these competing rights. It highlights the importance of having clear policies on social media use and the expression of beliefs, as well as the need for training to ensure these policies are applied consistently and fairly.
This article was generated using Lex HR, an AI tool designed to assist HR professionals with employment law. If you find the content helpful, please explore Lex HR and sign up for a free trial to see how it can benefit your HR practices.
