Dismissed for a social media post: The laws around discrimination for a religious belief

In the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School, a school administrator was dismissed after making remarks on social media in respect of religion, education and relationships. The posts resulted in complaints that her views were prejudicial.

The Claimant alleged direct discrimination/harassment related to religion or belief. The claims failed at first instance. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the Tribunal’s decision and sent the claim back for further findings.

The Employment Tribunal was asked to decide whether the Respondent’s actions were motivated only by an objection to the views held or a manifestation of the religion or belief itself.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision stated that the Tribunal had not considered if the Respondent’s actions were proportionate with the Claimant’s right to freedom of religion.

The Tribunal had failed to carry out the necessary balancing act between the inference with that right and the Respondent’s objectives in taking action against the Claimant.

The distinction here was not whether the Respondent considered the Claimant’s views to be wholly unacceptable, but rather whether the Respondent’s motivation had arisen because of the Claimant’s belief – which is protected under the Act – or by a justified objection to that belief which is not protected.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has provided guidelines in relation to claims of this nature, stating that manifestation cases are fact sensitive and require a nuanced decision‐making approach. It also referred to three key cases to be considered before making a decision.

It is established therefore that while a person may hold a belief which is unacceptable, the decision against the employee must be a justified objection of that belief and not simply because a person holds a particular belief.

For example, if a person holds a position of trust and influence over a vulnerable person and tried to influence them with their own beliefs, it could potentially be objectively justified to take action against them in order to protect that vulnerable person.

It is not the belief itself, therefore, which is being criticised but rather whether the action taken is objectively justified because of the way in which that belief has manifested itself.