Allison Bailey v Stonewall

I'd love to go and watch. I've seen from the SC website that this is theoretically possible. Would it likely be a very busy public gallery for this one, do we think?

Hellair all.

I think this is the first thread, but there are 19 altogether...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing

Which one? There are so many.

Is the world ready for Bundles 2: The Bundling 😁

I was wondering the same thing.

I don't think would help them at all. Eg if a religious organization managed somehow to cause GCC to discriminate against AB due to her sexuality (acting in good faith because it is their religious belief that homosexuality is sinful and they were confident that the law would take their side) this would not help them one little bit.

So even if Stonewall were acting in good faith on some belief about the law allowing discrimination against AB, they were wrong - and if they caused it to happen, their good faith matters not a jot.

They covered it fully, as did MN. 25 odd threads of the first tribunal 😂 worth a read. Many of us were observing.

Ahh! Thanks - I was thinking I should go back to see if Tribunal Tweets had covered the other hearings. I’ve heard so much about the support needs and bins it’s almost legendary

Obviously RMW was involved in the original tribunal for Stonewall as junior counsel, this is the origin of all the bundle jokes.

Oh NC is so naughty! Goading them into appointing one of the useless usual suspects who would obvs make a total hash of it. I so hope they do this - the entertainment value! If Ben Cooper got a mention for his good advice, I wonder if the opposite might apply…?

My question was whether they could claim in court that they truly believed at the time that the advice they were giving - and the actions they were encouraging companies to take - was correct

Why would it help them to do so?

It’ll be pompous windbag, surely?

Stonewall should absolutely instruct Steph. Just for entertainment purposes.

Well yes, that's what we all know or at least suspect. Denton's Playbook and all that. And I completely agree that the Champions scheme was a nightmare in waiting: companies know there is a social value in being accepted into the scheme, and even more value in being in the top rankings. So they not only bend over backwards to do what Stonewall say but to outpace other companies for a place in the Top 100. It placed so much power in Stonewall's hands with - as far as I can see - no oversight or safeguard.

My question was whether they could claim in court that they truly believed at the time that the advice they were giving - and the actions they were encouraging companies to take - was correct and only found after the SC ruling last year that they weren't.

(Of course, what someone claims retrospectively as a defence and the reasons for acting in a certain way originally may or may not be the same thing...)

@OpheliaWitchoftheWoods I think Stonewall, was it the very supported Kirrin Medcalf admitted it in court.

Stonewall isn't regulated by any professional body in it's provision of what might be called "legal advice", so it doesn't have any obligation to do so only in "good faith", whatever that might mean.

Even if they were deliberately and intentionally evil with clear and irrefutable documentation on hand to prove so, I don't see how it would make any difference.

Would Stonewall be able to claim they gave legal advice in good faith? As in, good faith that their interpretation of the law was correct and/or the law was open to interpretation anyway, something supported by the SC needing to issue a clarification via FWS v The Scottish Minsters in 2025?

Of course, this doesn't alter the fact of the 'do the right thing" comment, which is clearly applying pressure and is still open to interpretation (IIRC) as to what the implied consequences for not "doing the right thing" might be. Therin would lie the difference between causation and inducement?

Two thirds of applications to the SC for leave to appeal to the SC are refused. Those applications would be from a lower court decision where that lower court itself (such as in this case the Court of Appeal of England and Wales) denied permission to appeal to the SC.

The hearing has not been scheduled yet; my guess would be some time in 2027.

apologies, I'm just catching up to this thread, what does it mean when it says 'the overwhelming majority of applications are refused'? Who from and what?

When is the SC hearing?

I see the champions scheme as distinct from training. I can see this case may have an impact on organizations that operate allyship and accreditation schemes. The same might be said for an organization undergoing ISO9001 certification, or trying to get the Crystal Mark on their leaflets. Or use an accredited logo indicating their food is organic. They might all be in a position to be “caused” to discriminate unlawfully.

in a sense it’s just a coincidence that the organization doing the “causing” of unlawful discrimination just happened to be a campaign group about … discrimination.

"attempting to" would seem to open the door quite wide.