School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts
A school in a years-long legal battle involving a staff member who was sacked after sharing social media posts about LGBT+ relationships teaching cannot take the case to the Supreme Court, justices have ruled.
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
32 minutes ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC, and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc.. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million dollar checks to those who signed the petition. and The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million dollar checks to two different people, both of which the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said that the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million dollars on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford still won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk for his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mendel, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mendel said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or 'he can't possibly get away with this,'' Mendel said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and, I think people across the political spectrums intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.'
BBC News
37 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump attorneys argue for hush-money appeal to move to federal court
Attorneys for Donald Trump on Wednesday argued that the appeal of his felony conviction in New York should be moved to federal court because the case related to official acts as president, while the state said it was too late to make the was convicted last May of lying in relation to a hush-money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, which he appealed. Then, in July, the US Supreme Court granted the president immunity for official acts. For Trump's legal team, the goal of moving to federal court is for the conviction to be overturned on immunity sides made their case during a one-hour hearing before a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump's attorney, Jeffrey Wall, argued that the president's appeal belonged in federal court because the Manhattan District Attorney's Office chose to include evidence that they say relates to Trump's official acts as president, including testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks."Everything about this cries out for federal court," Mr Wall told the three-judge panel. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, meanwhile, argued Trump's legal team took too long to ask for the case to be moved, after his sentencing. "After sentencing, removal is no longer available," said Steven Wu of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. "Even if it were technically available, there are compelling reasons not to permit it."Mr Wu also disagreed with Trump's attorneys that some of the evidence presented in the hush-money trial related to his official acts. He gave an example of a postal worker who robbed someone while not at work, but then chose to confess his crimes in the postal office. The confession in the office, he argued, would not be related to the postal worker's official duties. Trump's crime, Mr Wu argued, "was completed before the White House evidence". During the hearing, the three judges pressed both sides, noting the case was "extraordinary" and "highly unusual". One judge told Mr Wall it would be "quite anomalous" for an appeal to be moved to federal another noted that the Supreme Court in their immunity ruling used "broad" language to describe which evidence is related to "official acts" as president. The panel is expected to issue a written opinion at a later date. Trump's attorneys argued last September to move his New York case to the federal courts, but that request was denied by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. The 2nd US Circuit court is now hearing the appeal of that decision. Trump was sentenced in the hush-money case ten days before taking office in January. He was given an unconditional discharge, meaning he received no fines, probation or jail time, but the conviction will stay on his record. Trump was indicted in several criminal state and federal cases before his latest run for office, but the New York case was the only one to go to trial before he won the presidency. Trump's defence lawyers in the New York case, including Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have since been promoted to positions in the justice department.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Glamorous ex-president sounds off in furious speech before being hauled to jail
Argentina's former president unleashed an all-time rant after the country's highest court upheld her six-year prison sentence on corruption charges - ripping into everyone from the current Argentine president to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Cristina Kirchner greeted thousands of supporters outside her party's headquarters in Buenos Aires on Tuesday night and slammed the Supreme Court 's three-judge panel decision. The 72-year-old was found guilty in 2022 of awarding 51 public contracts for public works to companies that were tied to a close friend and convicted construction magnate. The agreements were priced 20 percent above the standard rate in a scheme that cost the South American nation tens of millions of dollars, the government found. Kirchner's administration carried out 'an extraordinary fraudulent maneuver' that harmed the interests of the government and resulted in the embezzlement of roughly $70 million at the current exchange rate. In March, Kirchner, who served as president from 2007 to 2015 and was Vice President from 2019 to 2023 under President Alberto Fernandez, asked the court to review her sentence. On Tuesday, judges Jorge Gorini, Rodrigo Giménez Uriburu and Andrés Bass – whom were all appointed by Kirchner, rejected her petition because the prison sentence 'does nothing more than to protect our republican and democratic system,' according to the resolution that was obtained by the Associated Press. Kirchner spoke out against their decision as the crowd got riled up and shouted an expletive-laden chat directed at the judges. 'They are three puppets who respond to natural commands far above them,' Kirchner said. 'Let no one be confused because the worst thing is not the opposition either, it is the economic power concentrated in the Republic of Argentina.' Kirchner did not stop there, going after current Argentine President Javier Milei and taking a thinly veiled shot at Trump, whom she accused of pandering to Elon Musk. 'He (Milei) is there because he was voted in, but when this puppet falls like the other puppet in the north, the friend of the chainsaw-wielding Elon Musk - look at the embarrassment and the mess, these things finally explode.' Kirchner, whose husband Nestor Kirchner was president from 2003 to 2007, has been given five business days to show up in court and turn herself in. The court also asked Argentina's security ministry to set up a detention center, where she is expected to be held. 'Being imprisoned is almost a certificate of political and personal historical dignity,' Kirchner said during the rally. A supporter gestures holding a banner outside the house of former President Cristina Kirchner after Argentina's Supreme Court upheld her guilty verdict for defrauding the government Kirchner's lawyers have asked the court to consider allowing her to serve her six-year sentence under home confinement because of her age and health condition. The court ruling also means that Kirchner will be banned from running in this fall's Buenos Aires legislative elections just days after she launched her campaign. Supporters of Kirchner and her political movement, known as 'Kirchnerism,' blocked main roads into Buenos Aires and stormed the offices of Argentina's two main cable networks that are widely considered critical of the ex-leader, Channel 13 and Todos Noticias, smashing televisions, vandalizing cars and shattering windows. There we no injuries reported.
