header-logo header-logo

Discrimination & gender-critical beliefs: a clash of rights?

21 July 2023 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 8034 / Categories: Features , Employment , Tribunals , Discrimination , Human rights
printer mail-detail
131243
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on gender-critical beliefs has brought human rights to the fore: Charles Pigott analyses a significant development for discrimination claims
  • In allowing Mrs Higgs’ appeal against her dismissal for expressing gender-critical views, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has emphasised that the claimant’s human rights should be the starting point when adjudicating on discrimination claims based on the protected characteristic of religion or belief.

In a recent ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld Kristie Higgs’ appeal against the 2020 employment tribunal ruling which had dismissed her claims for direct discrimination and harassment (Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] EAT 89). It has remitted the case to an employment tribunal for it to determine the ‘reason why’ question—ie whether she was subjected to the detriments of which she has complained ‘because of’ her religion or belief.

Key issue

The key issue on appeal was whether the school (a state secondary school) directly discriminated against Mrs Higgs when it dismissed her

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll