Protected beliefs: when does the sharing of views on social media justify dismissal?

The amount of personal information and views shared on social media has risen steadily over time, with no sign that this trend will slow down.

But what happens when an employee posts something that could be harmful to their employer’s reputation?

This is a question that employers are increasingly being faced with, that is, deciding whether the sharing of such information has blurred the boundary between an employee’s personal and professional life.

In the most extreme circumstances, such conduct may indeed justify dismissal. In other circumstances, a dismissal in these circumstances could be discriminatory. In fact, this was the view taken in a recent Court of Appeal (“CoA”) decision which acts as a cautionary tale for employers.

Higgs v Farmor’s School

The facts

Briefly, Mrs Higgs had worked at Farmor’s School for six years when a parent lodged a complaint about content she had shared on her personal Facebook account. The complaint alleged that Mrs Higgs had posted two “homophobic and prejudiced” messages.

Of note, Mrs Higgs’s account was held in her maiden name and was not connected with the school.

The first post shared contained text from an article, copied by Mrs Higgs, which criticised the government’s decision to make the teaching of same-sex relationships mandatory in schools. Mrs Higgs had also added an introductory comment to this text. The second post was a repost of an article by Mrs Higgs which opposed the teaching of gender fluidity in schools.

Following the complaint, the school conducted a disciplinary investigation which resulted in the dismissal of Mrs Higgs.

Mrs Higgs unsuccessfully appealed the school’s decision and so brought claims against her employer, including one of direct discrimination on the grounds of protected beliefs.

The claim

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim. They concluded that Mrs Higgs’ online expression could reasonably be viewed as “homophobic and transphobic” which, in turn, could negatively affect pupils, parents, staff and the wider community, as well as damaging the school’s reputation. As such the dismissal was justified.

Mrs Higgs appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”). The EAT allowed her appeal, holding that the Employment Tribunal had failed to consider whether the School’s actions were because of, or related to, the manifestation of her protected beliefs. The EAT remitted Mrs Higgs’ case for the tribunal to determine two issues. First, whether the School’s actions were because of, or related to, her manifestation of protected beliefs, or whether they were instead a response to something objectionable in the way it was expressed. Second, if the latter, whether the measures the School adopted were proportionate. Although successful at the EAT, Mrs Higgs appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the EAT should have gone further and ruled that her claim succeeded rather than remitting the case.

The CoA determined that the Employment Tribunal would be bound to find that the Claimant’s dismissal was not objectively justified and accordingly that it constituted unlawful discrimination. The CoA did not decide on whether the School was entitled to take objection to the posts, but instead assumed this was true for the purposes of the judgement. The CoA held that, even on that assumption, the dismissal was unquestionably a disproportionate response for the following reasons:

1. The language used by Mrs Higgs was not “grossly offensive” nor, largely, her own
2. There was no evidence that the school’s reputation had been damaged thus far
3. It was considered that Mrs Higgs would not, and had not at the time of the decision, allow her views to influence her work.

As a result, although Mrs Higgs’ conduct was deemed “unwise” and she had demonstrated a lack of insight into her wrongdoings, the CoA emphasised that the chosen sanction of dismissal was not a proportionate response and was therefore discriminatory.

In June 2025, the Supreme Court refused permission for the School to appeal against the decision which brings an end to the matter.

Implications for employers

Consequently, employers are reminded that, if an employee is dismissed for the expression of their protected beliefs, this is likely to amount to direct discrimination unless:

• The employee’s view has been communicated in an “objectionable” way; and
• Dismissal would be a proportionate course of action.

As such, it is crucial that the disciplinary process is managed appropriately and concludes with a proportionate outcome. This is especially the case when it comes to online posts, with the court emphasising that a comment posted on a private social media page may merit different treatment than if it were made in a work setting.

If you have any questions about how to properly address and manage misconduct in the workplace, including producing workplace policies, please do contact a member of our Employment team.