Allison Bailey Appeal

Will there be support kittens?

Will there be … Ben?

Will there be <whisper it>... bundles?

I'll donate to this.

I'm in the mood for gardening, as it happens.

Ooh.

Oops*Allison

Just read the email. Can't wait! I'd be very happy to dig again for this cause.

Dennis Noel Kavanaugh has tweeted it.

<giggling at Cooperman picture downthread>

All the best Alison!

https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1667198017256976385?s=20

Obviously nobody should give more than they can, but I for one will happily donate to watch Stonewall squirm.

Was actually just thinking the other day how I miss those tribunal threads and the ridiculousness....support dog anyone?

I am on her mailing list and got this email today explaining a bit more:

Good news. I have been notified today by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that my appeal has passed the sift stage and will proceed to a full hearing.

The sift means that a senior EAT judge has looked at my grounds of appeal against Stonewall and determined that the proposed grounds raise reasonably arguable questions of law relating to the approach of the Employment Tribunal to the application of sub-sections 111 (2) and (3) Equality Act 2010.

When the Employment Tribunal dismissed my case against Stonewall, we say that they applied the wrong test for causation and took the wrong approach to inducement under the EqA 2010.

If I succeed on appeal it will mean that Stonewall will bear responsibility for its role in causing or inducing unlawful discrimination and victimisation against me and it will create binding legal precedent.

Findings in respect of my claims against Garden Court Chambers are not appealed. As far as we know they have not appealed either. The deadline for them to do so would have been last year, within 42 days of the judgment, and so we would expect to have received notice of it by now had they appealed.

I will update you further as and when I am able to do so.

Interesting, thank you

Apologies if this is the wrong thread, but I've just spotted on Twitter that Alison Bailey v Stonewall is going to a full EAT hearing.
#HappyPrideMonth

I wonder if this might have had a different outcome if GCC wasn’t a legal group. As in did the judgement consider that GCC should have understood the legal situation better.

If Allison had faced the same situation with a non legal employer would SW have been seen to be more responsible as they were presenting themselves as experts to people who couldn’t reasonably be expected to understand the legal position better than the self proclaimed experts?

Please do But if you can get the formatting right, it would be an improvement!

Excellent summary!

I hope you don’t mind, but I am going to steal that when I need to explain this to people who aren’t quite there yet.

Interesting

www.xperthr.co.uk/editors-choice/parties-challenging-tribunal-decision-with-new-evidence-should-seek-review-not-appeal/103155/

I don't know if this is helpful or not. I just googled.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-appeal-tribunal-rules

Of course, the vital question here is: how many support beings will be summoned by SWers in the course of this appeal?

How does an appeal work? Is it possible to introduce new evidence and witnesses or is it only possible to re-examine what was put before the original hearing?

I wondered this too. But it might be more that she has limited resources (mental energy as much as money) and needed to be sure GCC weren’t appealing before feeling able to commit to appealing the SW ruling.

Seems like it would be hard to prove they had a direct impact even though we all know they did.

Even if they had a direct impact, I'm not sure that makes them liable (at least from an employment perspective).

However their defence "if employers are stupid enough to harass employees we ask them to then it's not our responsibility" might make it very easy to get an appeal court judgement holding employers responsible if they discriminate against those with GC views.

And that is what we really want because the ET wasn't binding.

In effect Stonewall's own defence to the ET would contribute to it being unlawful for them to solicit employer action like they have.

IANAL, this is all speculation from reading around the tribunal.

also think it’s good to have things settled in court of appeal due to its ability to set precedent.

I think this is the reason for it. Even if she wins nothing new, the key elements of her victories so far (which protect GC views from employment discrimination) will be secured as legal precedent.

It's not enough to just have the MF case. Building up a body of case law will go a long way towards stopping what Stonewall and other have been doing.

The added scrutiny of SW's behaviour is just gravy.

I know it's hard digging again but I'll be putting in because I think this is the step that really matters.

Yeah, Allison's case against them was a lot stronger than Stonewall. Also the major downsides for GCC last time were costs and dirty laundry being aired in public, both of which are inevitably worsened even further with an appeal even if they won. The sum they had to pay Allison wasn't massive, so it wouldn't justify the definite costs of further challenge.

Such good news that GCC are not appealing.

I do hope they give the EAT the go ahead.