It is undeniable that social media is a powerful tool to help spread information and support the expression of one’s views but, where is the line drawn when it comes to such expression in the employment context? When can one’s private social media activity pose a threat to their employment?
In the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] EAT 89, the Claimant, an employee of the Farmor’s School was dismissed for gross misconduct following a complaint about her personal Facebook posts, which were described as ‘homophobic’ and expressing ‘prejudiced views against the LGBTQ+ community’. There was a particular concern over the posts given that the Claimant in her role, worked alongside LGBTQ+ pupils and created the perception that she held ‘unacceptable views in relation to gay and trans people’ contrary to the Equality Act (EqA) 2010’.
“Religion” and “belief” are protected characteristics under the EqA 2010 and the Act defines belief widely to mean ‘any religious or philosophical belief’ or even a lack of belief. Following her dismissal, the Claimant brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal (ET) claiming harassment and direct discrimination on account of this protected characteristic. The claim was unsuccessful in the ET and prompted a subsequent appeal to the EAT.
While the Claimant is of the Christian faith, it was not her case that she had been directly discriminated on this basis. Rather, the Claimant was arguing that she was discriminated or harassed for her:
The appeal was allowed by the EAT who concluded that the Tribunal in the first instance had not properly assessed the nature of the post and whether it was a manifestation of the claimant’s beliefs, resulting in the case being remitted back to the ET for judgment.
So what went wrong? It was held that the ET should have firstly assessed if there was a ‘sufficiently close or direct nexus between [the Claimant’s] beliefs and her Facebook posts’. Once this had been done, if satisfied that there was a close nexus, the Tribunal then ought to have assessed the “reason why” the action or decision was taken by the employer and whether it was prescribed by law and necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The EAT refers to this as the proportionality assessment.
Key Takeaways
Employers and practitioners will benefit from the 5 principles identified by the EAT in paragraph 94 of its judgment. These principles should be considered whenever there is a risk that an employer may potentially be interfering with the rights to freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression.
These principles are as follows:
Comment
While it has been recommended in the Acas guidance that employers should implement social media policies to help clarify the acceptable and unacceptable uses in the workplace, the EAT decision is welcome as it provides much needed updated clarity regarding the approach and the stance the courts will take with respect to manifestation of religion or belief on social media.
If you need detailed advice on such related manners, please do not hesitate to reach out to our experienced Employment team.
Family Mediation Week is an annual event where family lawyers come together to raise awareness of family mediation and the benefits it can bring to separating families.
Read moreBelow is SMB's Winter newsletter, highlighting important updates to immigration policy in the UK and worldwide
Read moreAI has the potential to reshape industries, enhance productivity and transform public services on a global scale. Recognising the profound potential of this technology, the UK government has launched its AI Opportunities Action Plan (“Plan”) to position the UK as a global leader in AI innovation.
Read more