Karen Plumbley-JonesHiggs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109
A school dismissed a Christian employee for posts she had made on her personal Facebook page that criticised the nature of sex education in schools and the teaching of gender fluidity. Was this direct discrimination? The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal was not objectively justified so constituted unlawful direct discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. The dismissal was a disproportionate response, the posts did not intend to incite hatred or disgust for gay or trans people and there was no evidence that the school’s reputation had been damaged. Although the employee’s conduct was unwise, it did not justify her dismissal.
British Council v Sellers [2025] EAT 1
Did the employment tribunal (ET) err in ordering the re-engagement of an employee who had been unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct? The employer argued that it was not practicable to re-engage the employee because it had lost all trust and confidence in him and believed him to be guilty of a sexual assault. He had also refused to vacate the employer’s property and failed to return artwork, which added to the loss of trust. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the ET had erred by failing to assess how practicable re-engagement was from the employer’s perspective. The EAT set aside the order for re-engagement so the ET will now decide the level of compensation, unless this is agreed by the parties.
Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham [2025] EAT 14
An employee was made redundant after telling her employer she was pregnant. She was interviewed for an alternative role but was unsuccessful. She filed a grievance but the employer’s firewall blocked it so they failed to deal with it. She claimed automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy or maternity discrimination. Her discrimination claim was upheld and the ET awarded her £10,000 for injury to feelings. The employer appealed, arguing that this was manifestly excessive. The appeal was upheld. The EAT found that the employer’s failure to deal with the grievance was due to an IT issue and was not deliberate. It was a procedural failing rather than substantive discrimination and there was no evidence of lasting impact on the claimant. The EAT reduced the award to £2,000 plus interest. The EAT would have considered a lower award but agreed with the ET that some additional injury could be inferred from the fact the claimant had been chasing her grievance when she should have been enjoying her maternity leave.
Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force) [2025] EAT 15
An employee was dismissed for gross misconduct for failing to disclose a previous gross misconduct dismissal on his application form. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal and argued that it was unreasonable for his employer to treat his failure as grounds for dismissal, as the application form did not expressly request the reasons for leaving a previous job. The EAT agreed with the ET that the employee had been fairly dismissed. The ET had asked itself the correct questions (whether the employer believed the claimant to be guilty of misconduct and, if so, whether it had reasonable grounds for that belief based on a reasonable investigation) and had come to a conclusion that was open to it on the facts.
