Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 18

Well, I'm sure all of these brave Diversity Champions are totally unperturbed by today's result and will all be standing by Stonewall.

www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members

Well I for one doubt there will be much celebrating at Stonewall HQ this evening. In fact, they should be shitting themselves.

It's interesting that it is becoming commonplace across media outlets to see the use of the word 'controversial' when reporting about Stonewall now. Using the word as a descriptor for both the organisation, it's stances on sex/identity, or it's workplace diversity champions scheme - often all three.

This is not something that would have happened until relatively recently. Outcomes like today, although Stonewall apologists will crow about 'winning', increase that momentum. The narrative is changing, the media is not wary of the 'no debate' backlash anymore.

The 'trans identity of 2 year olds' affair this week was a massive self harm. The Allison Bailey ruling against GCC as a Stonewall partner just days later massively undermines the future viability of their existing money making schemes.

There is further battle ahead no doubt, but Stonewall has suffered lethal wounds, they cannot continue as they are doing.

Will Garden Court Chambers even be around next year? They’ve taken such a reputational kicking and they now all owe money! And I imagine half of them are raging with the other half.

I can’t imagine they’d appeal, talk about throwing good money after bad.

I guess the idea of not only acting solely in your own interests is lost on certain people..

Isnt it?!

And anyone who thinks that this was anything but an embarrassing L for Stonewall really wasn’t paying attention. Like strategic litigation, reputational damage is also A Thing What is the lasting image that Joe Public has of this trial? Senior staff at a formerly respected charity need to bring their mum and their dog to a professional obligation for moral support, while stating that there’s no such thing as male and female bodies.

Do you think Garden Court Chambers will sign up to Stonewall schemes next year?

This.

What some people can't get their head around is that these women, Allison, Maya, Joanne, Keira - they aren't just doing all this for themselves, they are doing it to help others as well. Which is why a full 'win' doesn't matter. It is about, as Sophocles said, bringing sunlight and effecting societal change. Each case shifts things a little further.

I guess the idea of not only acting solely in your own interests is lost on certain people...

Who was it on here who said this case was A Very Big Deal for the whole legal profession - as in, everyone was keeping track of it? Or was it on RoF?

Thanks for the link: it’s really interesting to put the £22k aggravated damages in context and learn that £5k damages is the typical amount. Also thanks to the pp who posted the Spectator link highlighting how scared even cabinet ministers and shadow cabinet ministers have been to speak out on this and how important this case, and Maya’s case, are in lessening the fear.

Just brilliant news and I liked the summary of the case that was written

So pleased to read this!
Knew the EJ was on the ball. Special shout out to Martin Reuby too!

As an aside, Bet that was the easiest money IOW has ever earned.

The cost to Garden Court Chambers is not easy to quantify to the pound and penny but it's going to be on the significant side of 'fecking enormous'.

Against that, they've shown they're willing to go the extra mile. They ought to be rocketed to no1 SW Champion Employer, such is their dedication to the cause. If there's any justice.

I worry they'll get passed over though.

<sigh>

Sophoclesthefox

Like button needed!

The cost to Garden Court Chambers is not easy to quantify to the pound and penny but it's going to be on the significant side of 'fecking enormous'.

Exactly this.

One of the biggest issues for them is the sunlight on how they (as a Chambers) "managed" their defence and the testimony of some very senior barristers whose personal reputation was damaged when they were cross examined. They did not perform well.

That's a big deal in legal circles - being made to look bad in front of your peers and it's why they shouldn't appeal. I can't imagine any of the main GCC protagonists want to go for round two....but who knows.

“strategic litigation”.

It’s a thing

There are always two prongs to the cases women here support. Firstly, we support individual women in defending themselves, their reputation, their livelihoods. Secondly, in doing that, we aim to effect larger societal change, such that any one of us, in similar circumstances don’t need to resort to expensive, stressful litigation, because all of our rights are already protected in law.

this case scores on both counts. Allison received support, and is vindicated in her claims against her chambers. The second is also a success because the dial has perceptibly shifted on the public perception of the dire limitations and deficiencies of Stonewalls advice, which they have themselves had to admit! This is good news for women because policies and practices that are detrimental to our sex based rights are now going to be eyed a lot more critically.

You do understand that this is literally all we want, yes, transallies? A plurality of views that protects everyone?

<optimist>

I once worked for a huge organisation with deep pockets. It absolutely hated employment tribunals because of the staff time and costs involved. They were an absolute nightmare in terms of tying up HR personnel and managers, witnesses, legals costs, reputational damage (win or lose), and hammering morale. It was not unknown for board members to be lobbied.

The cost to Garden Court Chambers is not easy to quantify to the pound and penny but it's going to be on the significant side of 'fecking enormous'.

I think Stonewall's accounts for this period are going to make very interesting reading. Legal expenses over the last 3 years together with the costs of a QC and a junior in court for a 6 week hearing. Falling income from all those departments, organisations and companies who are not renewing their membership.

No doubt there are legal ways to fudge the figures so these specific costs and drops in income are difficult to pick out in amongst other stuff. But I bet there are shit hot accountant types on here who'll be able to spot that kind of shenanigans a mile off.

To avoid anyone having to click the PN link, a spoiler: yes, that TW who lost on 60 counts was reported as having won the employment tribunal. To be fair I think that’s how it goes when reporting on tribunals. The inconsistency from Cohen is funny though.

That’s so funny. I had a hunch so I looked it up and sure enough, guess how PN reported the case of the absolutely-fabulist transwoman who lost on 60 out of 61 allegations of discrimination in their NHS employment tribunal:

www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/07/21/trans-nhs-worker-discrimination-case-sheffield-teaching-hospitals/

Yes that's strange - it was 'Trending' all morning when there was far less traffic on it.

Very odd isn't it? I shall report and ask

Having listened to much of the evidence, this was the result I was expecting. The GCC barristers hoist themselves by their own petard and their evidence effectively made the case against them, which is why they’d be foolish to appeal. The loss of work claim was saved for GCC by the evidence of the clerks, the chief of whom appeared to be entirely ambivalent about the politics. Stonewall threw GCC under the bus by pointing out rightly that GCC were responsible for their own behaviour and didn’t have to take their advice. However they may be celebrating a win, but who now is going to want to take their advice? I think it may have deeper reaching consequences for them.

Apart from exposing stonewall as an organisation that is likely to bring its clients into disrepute, Ms Bailey's case has exposed a toxic culture at GCC which is supposed to stand for social justice. They came across as incompetent, poorly managed, homophobic and bullying. It certainly isn't somewhere a black lesbian should feel offers her a future.

Is there a reason why this tread isn't on the 'trending' list? It seems to have plenty of recent contributions.

How much money did GCC spend on this case?

It will have been hundreds of thousands of pounds.

In addition, for a Chambers that promotes its "progressive" credentials to have been found discriminating against a black female lesbian is hugely significant.

Shafted seems appropriate terminology.....