IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v54y2025i2p389-414..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It’s Not What You Said, It’s the Way That You Said It: Manifesting Protected Beliefs in the Workplace Following Higgs v Farmor’s School

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Foran

Abstract

In Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109, the Court of Appeal clarified the legal framework for workplace discrimination claims involving the manifestation of protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, affirming its decision in Page v NHS Trust. The court held that adverse treatment due to an objectively inappropriate or objectionable manifestation of a protected belief is not discrimination 'because of' the belief itself, if the response is proportionate under Article 9(2) ECHR. This introduces a justification test into the causation analysis for direct discrimination, aligning domestic law with Convention rights but threatening to undermine fundamental features of the Equality Act 2010 by incorporating justification analysis into the test for direct discrimination. Proposing a five-step test, this note argues in favour of protecting manifestations via indirect discrimination to ensure ECHR compliance without distorting direct discrimination principles, preserving the Equality Act’s fundamental features.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Foran, 2025. "It’s Not What You Said, It’s the Way That You Said It: Manifesting Protected Beliefs in the Workplace Following Higgs v Farmor’s School," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 54(2), pages 389-414.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:2:p:389-414.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwaf017
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:2:p:389-414.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.