THE Court of Appeal in Higgs v Farmor's School 2025 EWCA Civ 109 might offer the Supreme Court something to chew on.Fusing human rights law jurisprudence into the carefully constructed framework of domestic non-discrimination law, Higgs appears to be a comprehensive attempt to square the circle.It acknowledges direct discrimination on the ground of expression of belief to fall within the scope of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), simultaneously allowing employers to justify objectively such discrimination if the manner of expression becomes disproportionately (and objectively) "objectionable".Commendable as Higgs may be, it could prove a step too far.The Court of Appeal, on the heels of Page v NHS Trust Development Authority 2021 EWCA Civ 255, through an interpretation in line with Article 9(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), essentially read a new facet of a protected characteristic into the meaning of "belief " under section 10 of the EA, thus allowing for the justification of direct discrimination beyond the statutorily mandated (EA, sched.9) occupational requirements defence.That approach might be stretching section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to its limits.However, it could lead to a more radical human rights law based shift of discrimination law, in the first instance and, potentially, even of employment law itself.In Higgs, the Court of Appeal addressed the suspension and ultimate dismissal of Mrs. Higgs, an employee of Farmor's School, working, when the circumstances of her dismissal arose, in a role that had her engage with both parents and students.Mrs. Higgs, a Christian holding certain gender-critical beliefs, had used her personal Facebook page to repost posts (at 10, 12), on occasion adding her own comments (at 10), arguing that gender is binary and not "fluid" and that same-sex marriage cannot be equated with traditional marriage between a man and a woman, making it wrong to teach anything different to primary school children.Although her profile used her maiden name, a parent who had seen the posts lodged a complaint with the school.Mrs. Higgs was interviewed, suspended pending further investigation and, ultimately, summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.The claims Mrs. Higgs raised before the Employment Tribunal (ET) on direct discrimination (EA, s. 13) and harassment (EA, s. 26) on the ground of religion or belief were dismissed.Her appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), however, was allowed and the claim remitted.The EAT found that the ET had failed to construe properly the EA 2010 in light of Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR (respectively, on freedom of thought,
Fotis Vergis (Sat,) studied this question.