{"id":259371,"date":"2025-05-27T07:51:12","date_gmt":"2025-05-27T07:51:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-challenge-of-balancing-freedom-of-expression-with-the-risk-of-harassment-law-firm\/"},"modified":"2025-05-27T07:51:12","modified_gmt":"2025-05-27T07:51:12","slug":"freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-challenge-of-balancing-freedom-of-expression-with-the-risk-of-harassment-law-firm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=259371","title":{"rendered":"Freedom of speech in the workplace: the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with the risk of harassment – Law Firm"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

Employers are facing an unprecedented challenge when it comes to freedom of speech in the workplace. Increased polarisation of opinions on topics such as the gender-critical debate, the Israel-Gaza conflict and even UK politics means that debates about personal opinions have become more frequent than ever.\u00a0 Such debates are regularly brought into the workplace, and this trend is likely to continue, particularly with regard to transgender inclusion issues, with cases such as For Women Scotland<\/a> <\/em>directly impacting a number of employers and employees.<\/p>\n

At the same time, recent cases such as Higgs v Farmor School<\/a><\/em> seem to limit the restrictions employers can lawfully place on employees\u2019 expressions of views which some employees may find offensive without discriminating against those employees on the basis of religion and\/or belief.\u00a0 Against this backdrop, many employers are understandably concerned about how to approach cases where one employee has offended another employee, or a third party, through the expression of their views. This article will look at some of the specific challenges which can arise in such situations and offer some potential solutions.<\/p>\n

The Higgs case: a recap<\/h2>\n

In the case of Higgs v Farmor School, <\/em>Mrs Higgs, a school administrator, published posts on Facebook which expressed gender-critical views. The school was informed by a member of the community about these posts and dismissed Mrs Higgs for gross misconduct, on the basis that (in the school\u2019s view) someone who saw the posts might infer hostility to transgender people. Mrs Higgs brought claims for discrimination and harassment on the grounds of her gender-critical beliefs. Although Mrs Higgs lost at Tribunal, the Court of Appeal found that Mrs Higgs\u2019 dismissal was discriminatory, also upholding the EAT\u2019s finding that it had contravened Articles 9 and 10 ECHR. While it accepted that the school had found the content of Mrs Higgs\u2019 posts objectionable, it found that Mrs Higgs\u2019 dismissal was disproportionate, on the basis that the language used was not grossly offensive and was derogatory rather than amounting to hate speech. There had been no evidence of reputational damage to the school (there was no perceived link on Facebook between the school and the posts) or that Mrs Higgs\u2019 views would influence her work.<\/p>\n

Challenges arising post-Higgs<\/h2>\n

The Higgs<\/em> case is a salutary reminder to employers that, when applying a sanction to an employee for expressing political and\/or religious views in an offensive manner, the sanction may be discriminatory unless it can be shown that it was proportionate to the actual or likely offence, harm or reputational damage caused.. Similar tricky situations employers may face might include:<\/p>\n