Allison Bailey sues TRA vets

That's fairly common in discrimination cases. Few businesses are naive enough to write something like "that uppity black GC bitch should learn her place." There are other ways to show discrimination. I'm sure Ms Reindorf KC feels like they can show a prima facie case of discrmination or she wouldn't have said the burden of proof shifted to the defendants.

from the site I linked earlier

A GP practice refuses to register you because you’re an Irish Traveller. This is direct discrimination because of race. For your case to succeed, you must be able to show that the practice refused to register you and that the reason they refused is because you're an Irish Traveller. This means you would have to show you've been treated differently and worse than someone else in a similar situation to you who's not an Irish Traveller.

To do this you could produce evidence that the surgery is advertising as taking on new patients and that other people who aren’t Irish Travellers have been able to register. The behaviour of the staff could also be useful evidence, if - for example, they were rude or unpleasant towards you. There may have been witnesses to this. You might also be able to show that other Travellers have been treated unfairly as well by the practice.

Taken together these facts would suggest that the reason you were unable to register is because you’re an Irish Traveller.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/cymraeg/Y-Gyfraith-a-Llysoedd/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/what-do-you-need-to-show-the-court-in-a-discrimination-claim/

Apparently the vets in question is actually owned by the Linnaeus group, who are themselves owned by Mars.

Allison might have bitten off more than she can chew with this case, and the legal bills could end up being significant

This is a ridiculous line of thinking.

The article says Allison has been rude to staff, and that more than one person has had problems with her.

Many people are disagreeable. The lord knows there are many people, even in the GC side, who I would not want to share a glass of wine with

Calling someone absolutely vile does seem strong, and is likely hyperbole, but it does not mean they are TRAs.

If I have an argument with someone on the park because my staffie has yapped at someone, and they call me a horrible name, it doesn't mean they are a TRA because they fell out with me, because my GC views had nothing to do with it...

'It is surprising the allegation has ever been made in circumstances in which there is no documentary evidence to support the assertion the claimant makes.'

From the Telegraph article.

What described in the DM and the Telegraph doesn't exactly sound like an open and shut case. Presumably she will have something more convincing to come out in the evidence still to be heard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/a41b22a49d7cb71d

While I am loving the unprecedented faith in the legal profession on this board, I should point out that the cab rank rule means that barristers take on cases regardless of merit, as long as they are not so unmeritorious as to be abusive. If a lay client is on legal aid then you have to apply a slightly higher standard because you can't waste public funds, but you absolutely do not have to be sure that the case will win or have a strong chance of doing so.

Agree. I've seen Reindorf speak a few times, including in person, and she is extremely impressive. Neither her, nor Rowling (who is also no idiot) would have taken on this case if they did not have a very strong chance of winning. I don't think it's possible to get to the bottom of it with what is being reported, so it will be interesting to see the detail when it does come out.

You can't surmise that at all! How do we know what she's like in her own time? She could be rude and vile for all we know, you can't blame everything on the TRA'S, that's going a bit far

We don't know the real reason for this. One theory is AB was allegedly rude to them regarding a comment over her dog's weight (which would have been part of doing their job if so). Vets and other practices have a zero tolerance policy towards abuse of employees so if this were the case banning her would be legally justified and yes they can describe her as vile in their report if that's how they felt.

"she's very good friends with JKR"

What does this mean. Is it a "Do you know who I am friends with?" instead of "do you know who I am?" since the general public probably won't know who she is unless they happened to hear about her Wispa incident or blowing a million pounds failing to sue Stonewall twice.

I know, I must say I thought the title labelling a vets practice as :TRA'S rather funny!!

"probably" is the relevant standard of proof.

The criminal standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" or "certain so that you are sure."

The civil standard of proof is the "balance of probabilities" or "is it more likely than not."

So if the judge agrees that it was "probably" prompted then that meets the test and is sufficiently robust.

Hmm well I'm not so sure but I'm ready to be surprised.

Correct. The internet had a good laugh over that one.

Can we also talk about this thread's title? Seems inaccurate and possibly derogatory to call the vet surgery "TRA" without any evidence just because AB wants to sue them (and to date doesn't have a good credible track record or success rate).

I just want to know where her thinking is coming from! I don't get it and sadly it sounds like she's been very rude to staff and that is the reason

I agree that the article doesn't give that key information. I don't know if that's bc Ms Reindorf KC didn't provide it or bc the author left it out.

I still think that she must feel like Bailey has a reasonably good case. You aren't supposed to file a case unless you think it has merit. I don't think she'd file a frivolous claim. If Reindorf thought it was without merit, my guess is that Bailey would then decide not to bring the case.

That doesn't mean Bailey will win but, to me, it means that it's very likely that both feel like the case is reasonably robust

No that was debunked on here earlier, it was the child next door that threw a Wisps bar into her garden

'In court documents, her lawyers claim Ms Bailey was 'directly discriminated against' by the practice due to beliefs which are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, and says an internal memo which branded her 'absolutely vile' was probably prompted by disapproval of her beliefs, rather than concerns about her conduct towards staff'

'Probably prompted '
It doesn't sound very robust. I just can't fathom why she's doing this.

There's nothing in that article about what that proof is though. It more or less says it's because she thinks so. We could all go around suing businesses based on ' because we think so'. There's got to be to this, or there should be

Thanks, that's really helpful. I guess she must have something that she thinks proves her case then.

You're leaving out an important piece of info in the article

"She told the judge that it is for the vets' practice to prove that they did not discriminate against Ms Bailey's protected gender-critical characteristic, rather than for her to prove that they did.

'The claimant has shifted the burden of proof and... the defendant cannot satisfy the court that it did not do the act alleged or that the act was in no sense whatsoever because of the claimant's gender-critical belief,' she said."

Initially, Allison Bailey must present a prima facie case that she's been discriminated against. Once she does that, the burden shifts to the defendants (the vet's office) to prove that they did not discriminate.

Here is a good explanation
When you make a discrimination claim, you need to show the court evidence that you’ve been treated unfairly and that the reason you’ve been treated unfairly is because of a protected characteristic.....

When you make a discrimination claim, you need to provide the court with evidence from which it could decide that the discrimination took place. The obligation on you to provide this evidence is called the burden of proof.\

To satisfy your burden of proof, you need to show the court facts from which it could decide without any other explanation from the person or organisation you're taking action against, that you've been discriminated against...

If the court thinks you’ve shown enough facts to meet the basic legal test, it will conclude you’ve been discriminated against unless the defendant can provide a good enough explanation for your treatment. The burden of proof is said to shift to the defendant. They would have to show that your treatment had nothing to do with a protected characteristic.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/cymraeg/Y-Gyfraith-a-Llysoedd/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/what-do-you-need-to-show-the-court-in-a-discrimination-claim/

If she wins this without producing any evidence then that is nothing to be proud of. It can't be right that the vet's have somehow got to disprove some idea in her head

That's just crazy!