Key Legal framework: Religion and Belief under Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”), The Education Act 2002 (“EA 2002”) and The Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (‘the Regulations’)
Under the EqA 2010, it is unlawful to treat someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Religion and belief is one of the nine protected characteristics, Protection from unlawful discrimination in an employment context applies to almost everyone working in a school, including employees, workers, peripatetic teachers and self-employed contractors. It also applies to job applicants. However, where a member of staff expresses religious or philosophical beliefs that are considered to be objectionable or inappropriate, disciplinary action in such cases can sometimes be necessary and justified.
The EA 2002 governs the duties of the Secretary of State in relation to educational needs. The Act underpins the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) which regulates the teaching profession. The Regulations sets out the process for investigating and disciplining teachers in misconduct cases.
Case overview
Ms Leger, was a teacher at Bishop Justus Church of England School. She was described by the court as a born-again “conservative” Roman Catholic Christian, She considered her faith to be a “mainstream form of Christianity which affirms the truthfulness of the Bible”.
In her witness statement to the court, Ms Leger described aspects of teaching at the school which she considered were not Christian, and in particular this included LGBTQ+ relationships and ideology, and abortion. However, as a teacher at the school, Ms Leger was expected to share LGBTQ+ material with her pupils as a part of the curriculum in PHSE and Religious Studies (‘RS’) lessons. She had shown her classes some LGBTQ+ material but said that she found it distressing, misleading, and contrary to her beliefs, and so stopped doing so.
On 8 February 2022, Ms Leger was asked to teach an RS lesson to her Year 7 students, which included a segment on LGBTQ+ topics and protected characteristics. On that occasion however, Ms Leger explained her Christian beliefs to the class, and explained why her LGBTQ+ ideology was contrary to those beliefs, and fielded questions from pupils on these issues.
One pupil expressed concerns over Ms Leger’s conduct. The pupil informed her parents that Ms Leger was “transphobic in class and [talking about] how trans people are not in the right mindset and later in life come to know they are wrong and will know their original gender”.
The pupil’s mother complained to the school, and as a result disciplinary proceedings were instigated, and the matter was referred to the TRA. Ms Leger was suspended from work in March 2022 and dismissed in May 2022.
In 2023, Ms Leger appeared before a TRA Professional Conduct Panel (‘PCP’) in which the panel found that a number of allegations were proved and found Ms Leger’s behaviour to be unacceptable professional conduct. The panel did not however find that Ms Leger’s conduct brought the profession into disrepute and therefore did not make a recommendation to the Secretary of State to issue a prohibition order. However the PCP did make a recommendation that the finding of misconduct should be published. The Secretary of State for Education agreed with the panel’s recommendations.
The Court’s findings: Claim dismissed
In May 2024, Ms Leger applied for Judicial Review on the basis that:
- The PCP failed to consider the context of her comments;
- The decision made by the PCP was unfair and breached Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’), the right to a fair trial;
- The PCP misdirected itself that Ms Leger had a duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, and this duty only applied to schools and not the individual; and
- The PCP infringed her rights under Article 8 ECHR, the right to private and family life, as well as Article 9 ECHR, the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and Article 10 ECHR, right to freedom of expression.
The High Court dismissed all of Ms Leger’s claims for the following key reasons:
- The context of Ms Leger’s comments was considered by the PCP – this included consideration of her Christian beliefs and her comments that were made in the context of a discussion regarding LGBTQ+ rights in a year 7 RS lesson in a Church of England school.
- The PCP hearing was not procedurally unfair or in breach of Article 6 ECHR
- The PCP was entitled to conclude that Ms Leger’s refusal to teach the segment of LGBTQ+ material from the curriculum because of her religious objections breached the school’s RS policy – although the statutory duty to have a broad and balanced curriculum does rest on schools rather than the individual teachers, it is the individual teachers who delivers the curriculum to pupils, and generally those teachers should be expected to deliver that curriculum in accordance with school policy.
- The decision was not in breach of Articles 9 and 10 ECHR
- The PCP’s and Secretary of State for Education’s decision was lawful – the decision was a “justifiable and proportionate sanction for her unacceptable professional conduct”, and there was no breach of Article 8 ECHR.
Key takeaways
The outcome of this case highlights the challenges schools or MATs, and in particular faith schools and MATs with any religious affiliation, may face.
The Court’s decision highlights the importance of having a clear Religious Studies policy, and the extent of the obligation to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. This is an obligation that extends not just to the school, but also, to some extent, to the teachers who deliver the curriculum.
However, schools and MATs should be careful not to think that just because a teacher’s expression of their religious or philosophical beliefs conflicts with that obligation, that will justify dismissal in all circumstances. Although in the present case the fairness of the dismissal was not an issue before the court, recent case law has considered the extent of an employer’s right to interfere with a worker’s expression of belief. See for example our case briefing on Higgs v Farmor’s School where the dismissal of Mrs Higgs was found to be both discriminatory and unfair because of her religion and belief. Schools and MATs should therefore proceed with great caution and take legal advice before taking any decision on disciplinary action or dismissal where it concerns an employee’s expression of their religious or philosophical belief.
For advice on any of the issues discussed in this case update, or any other employment or HR related matter for schools, please contact Winckworth Sherwood’s dedicated Schools HR helpdesk on SchoolsHR@wslaw.co.uk or 0345 026 8690.