Monthly Highlights – UK Employment Law – February 2025

In this month’s instalment, our team summarises the latest UK case law and developments in employment law – and their implications for employers.

1. In Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109 the Court of Appeal ruled that dismissing a school employee for expressing alleged discriminatory views linked to her conservative Christian faith on social media was unlawful discrimination. However, the court noted that discrimination based on religious beliefs can sometimes be justified.

Facts:

• Mrs Higgs, a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at Farmor’s School (the “School”), is a devout Christian who believes in the Bible’s literal truth. She opposes relationship education for young children, believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and does not believe in changing one’s biological sex.
• Using her maiden name, she posted articles on her private Facebook account criticizing government policies on relationship education and children’s books promoting gender fluidity. A Facebook friend reported these posts to the School, alleging they were homophobic.
• The School suspended Mrs Higgs, investigating her for potentially breaching its Code of Conduct and misusing social media. Despite finding no evidence of her expressing these views at School or treated LGBTQ+ individuals differently, the investigation concluded misconduct occurred. Mrs Higgs was summarily dismissed, appealed unsuccessfully, and then filed a claim for discrimination, arguing her dismissal was due to her religious beliefs.

Legal proceedings:

• Mrs Higgs’ claim was dismissed by an Employment Tribunal, which found that the language used in her posts suggested she held homophobic or transphobic views.
• Mrs Higgs appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) who allowed her appeal and found the Employment Tribunal erred by not examining whether her dismissal stemmed from the manifestation of her beliefs.
• The EAT remitted the claim to the Employment Tribunal for consideration of (i) whether the School’s dismissal of Mrs Higgs was a result of the manifestation of her beliefs or the manner in which she manifested them, and (ii) if it was the latter, whether her dismissal was a proportionate response.
• Mrs Higgs appealed the decision, stating that the EAT should have made a final decision which held that her claim was successful. Her appeal was allowed and progressed to the Court of Appeal. The School also appealed the decision, though this appeal was dismissed.

Findings:

• The Court of Appeal set out that (as per the principle in Page v NHS Trust Development Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 255), an employer can avoid liability for unlawful direct discrimination if it shows that its treatment of an employee was due to how the belief was expressed, not the belief itself, and that the response was justifiable.
• On the facts, the Court of Appeal:
  • Found that even if the dismissal was due to the manner in which Mrs Higgs had manifested her beliefs, the Schools’ response was disproportionate as there was no evidence of reputational damage (or even that, complaints beyond one individual). Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that even if additional complaints had been made to the school, more proportionate responses would have been appropriate.
  • Expressed doubts over whether the manner in which Mrs Higgs expressed her belief was objectionable as the language used was not her own and, whilst undoubtedly offensive, was not intended to incite hatred but instead was more dismissive and derogatory in its nature.

Takeaways:

• This decision does not remove the employers obligation to ensure that workplaces are free from unlawful discrimination and harassment. However, in cases of alleged religious discrimination, employers should focus on the manner in which the allegedly discriminatory religious belief was expressed rather than the mere fact that the belief itself was expressed.
• When evaluating if the manner of expression of belief is objectionable, an employer should consider:
• whether the statement was made in a work environment (i.e. rather than on personal social media) and would be likely to impact on others in a work environment;
• whether there is evidence of likely reputational damage to the employer; and
• whether there is any evidence of the employee showing insight into the alleged behaviour and whether this would suggest a likelihood to repeat such behaviour.
• Even if an employer finds that an allegedly discriminatory belief was expressed in an objectionable manner, any action taken must be proportionate and reasonable.

2. Government Scraps 'Right to Switch Off' Proposal in Employment Rights Bill Amid Cost Concerns

Recent reports indicate that the Government’s intention to incorporate a “right to switch off” into the Employment Rights Bill have been scrapped. The proposal would have enabled workers to ignore contact from employers outside of working hours (including working additional hours on weekends). The reversal is said to be driven by the Government’s attempts to reduce the costs based on businesses that stem from compliance with employment law obligations.

3. New Statutory Rates and Thresholds published for 2025

The statutory rates and thresholds for employers for 2025 – 2026 (which take effect from 1 April 2025) have been published by HMRC. The updated rates and thresholds relate to:

• PAYE and insurance contributions;
• National Minimum Wage;
• Statutory Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Shared Parental, Parental Bereavement and Neonatal Care Pay;
• Statutory Sick Pay;
• Advisory fuel rates for company cars; and
• Apprenticeship levies.

Additionally, the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025 come into force from 1 April and will result in an increase in national living wage and minimum wage rates as per the table below.

4. Government Unveils First Amendments to Employment Rights Bill Amid Ongoing Consultations

The Government has published the first round of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill (the “Bill”) for consideration in Parliament following a number of consultations on key aspects of the proposed changes to UK employment law. We will cover the amendments to the Bill in depth in our update next month but some of the headline proposals are set out below. 

• The amendments propose an increase in the period for protective awards from 90 to 180 days for collective redundancy situations. This means that the compensation companies will need to pay to employees if they breach rules on collective redundancy consultations can now be as high as 180 days of that employee’s pay.
• Under the amended Bill, agency workers on zero-hours contracts will now be entitled to compensation for last-minute shift cancellations and changes. They will also now have to be offered a contract under which they are guaranteed a minimum number of hours per week.
• Another proposed amendment to the Bill would extend qualification for statutory sick pay to workers who earn less than £123 a week from the first day on which they become ill. These workers would be entitled to the lower of £116.75 or 80% of their weekly earnings.