School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts

Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was sacked from her role at Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, in 2019 for sharing Facebook posts criticising teaching about LGBT+ relationships in schools.
In February, she won a Court of Appeal battle related to her dismissal, with three senior judges finding that the decision to sack her for gross misconduct was 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'unquestionably a disproportionate response'.
The school sought to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, but three justices refused to give the school the green light to challenge the decision in the UK's highest court.
In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler said that the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds.
But they said that the Supreme Court 'does not have jurisdiction' to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth 'does not raise an arguable question of law'.
In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: 'I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision.
'Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.'
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre – which supported Mrs Higgs' case, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision, which brings a decisive closure to this extraordinary case.'
She continued: 'The Court of Appeal confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace, particularly against sincerely held Christian convictions, is illegal.
'This latest decision from the Supreme Court is further proof that our tireless work at the Christian Legal Centre, in defending so many Christian freedoms cases, has not been in vain.'
Mrs Higgs, who worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school, shared two posts on a private page under her maiden name in October 2018 to about 100 friends, which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school.
She either copied and pasted from another source or reposted the content, adding her own reference in one post to 'brainwashing our children'.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has today refused to hear the appeal of Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire of the landmark Kristie Higgs Court of Appeal ruling.
In February 2025, in a seminal judgment for Christian freedom and free speech, the Court of Appeal had reversed… pic.twitter.com/ngiF80EVjQ
— Christian Concern (@CConcern) June 9, 2025
Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, a series of books that teach the Equality Act in primary schools.
An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Mrs Higgs' religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was lawful, but this decision was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023.
But the EAT ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Mrs Higgs' lawyers challenged in the Court of Appeal as 'unnecessary'.
In a judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Mrs Higgs' favour in February, stating: 'The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Reuters

an hour ago

• Reuters

US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits

June 20 (Reuters) - Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling, opens new tab upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.

NBC News

3 hours ago

• NBC News

Louisiana's Ten Commandments law in public schools blocked by federal appeals court

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled, in a unanimous decision, in favor of a coalition of Louisiana parents who sued to block a state law that requires public schools and colleges to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The appellate court's decision upholds a lower court's ruling in November declaring Louisiana's law as "facially unconstitutional." 'Parents and students challenge a statute requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom in Louisiana. The district court found the statute facially unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. We affirm,' the court said in its ruling. Now, the case moves closer to potentially going before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority. 'We are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana,' said the Rev. Darcy Roake, who is a plaintiff in the case. Louisiana's law went into effect this year at public K-12 schools and state-funded universities. State officials issued guidance on how posters of the Ten Commandments could be designed and hung up in classrooms for educational purposes. While the law applies to the majority of school districts throughout the state, the five school districts that have parents who are plaintiffs in the original lawsuit are exempt while the litigation plays out. It's unclear how many, if any, school districts have begun to comply, and questions remain about what might happen to educators who ultimately don't cooperate. During the federal appeals court hearing in January, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga argued that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was filed too early — before any posters have been displayed. "The plaintiffs seek to challenge hypothetical displays that do not exist and that they have never seen," Aguiñaga said. "The plaintiffs jumped the gun here and filed an unripe case," he said. But Jonathan Youngwood, a lawyer for the coalition of parents representing Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist and nonreligious backgrounds said the purpose of the law is tied to religion and violates a separation of church and state. "What makes this so significant is the requirement that it be in every single (classroom) throughout your 13 years in public school, 177 days a year," Youngwood said. "It can't be avoided. It can't be averted." The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP are supporting the plaintiffs. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has said no public funds would be required to be spent on printing the posters and they can be supplied through private donations. The law dictates the posters must be at least 11 by 14 inches and include a "context statement" that provides historical context for the commandments, which the state believes makes its law constitutional. In a Facebook post in January, Murrill said the state contends that federal courts "have no jurisdiction to decide this case." "The Constitution does not bar our Legislature's attempt to teach our students what the Supreme Court has repeatedly said: The Ten Commandments have historical significance as a foundation of our legal system," Murrill said. But U.S. District Judge John deGravelles of the Middle District of Louisiana disagreed with the state in his ruling in November, in which he wrote that there is no "constitutional way to display the Ten Commandments in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Act." The Supreme Court has also taken up the issue previously, when the justices ruled 5-4 in 1980 that Kentucky's posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools was unconstitutional. Still, President Donald Trump endorsed Louisiana's law during his campaign. Louisiana and other Republican-led states have pushed for new bills and policies that are testing the bounds of religion in public schools. That has included Oklahoma ordering public schools grades five through 12 to incorporate the Bible into lesson plans and Texas allowing public school districts to opt in to a new elementary school curriculum featuring Bible-based lessons. In April, the Supreme Court heard a bid by Oklahoma officials to approve the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. Meanwhile, Republican leaders in other states, such as Alabama and Texas, are supporting legislation similar to Louisiana's that would allow for the Ten Commandments in public schools. In April, Arkansas legislation requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in all public schools' classrooms and libraries became law just days after the GOP-controlled Legislature passed it.

The Guardian

5 hours ago

• The Guardian

US supreme court declines to fast-track challenge to Trump tariffs

The US supreme court declined on Friday to speed up its consideration of whether to take up a challenge to Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs even before lower courts have ruled in the dispute. The supreme court denied a request by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources, that filed the legal challenge against Trump's tariffs to expedite the review of the dispute by the nation's top judicial body. The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on 29 May that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency legal authority he had cited for them. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now. Learning Resources asked the supreme court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in Washington, where the case is pending. Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited for them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.