Allison Bailey v Stonewall

But if the advice under that scheme misstates the law and firms rely on that advice and in so doing discriminate against staff members, then have you caused the discrimination?

Let’s see what the submissions state but I suspect they will be a lot wider than the complaints.

Yes, I thought it was clear as day.

The SC is going to give their ruling about inducement, what it means and how you determine who is in a position to induce. What they say will have implications for a broader set of circumstances than apply in Allison's specific case

Weren’t in a position to be able to …

… and yet, they did.

I'm still not seeing it. The contents or subject of the advice given by Stonewall as part of its accreditation scheme wasn't mentioned or examined in any of the judgements.

The fact of GCC's membership of the Stonewall accreditation scheme is relevant, but so too I think it would have been if Stonewall had instead been running a balloon animals and crochet club, the loss of membership in which could equally have functioned as a lever to induce GCC to unlawful discrimination on a complaint of anti-trans/GC tweets by AB, from the chief balloon engineer.

Which is to say, yes, if you have organizations in your accreditation scheme don't threaten them with evicting them from it unless they do as you say - but that says nothing about whether the advice they pay you for as part of the scheme has to be good.

If it was limited to whether or not a specific complaint induced a behaviour then I doubt the SC would be remotely interested. It’s about the influence SW was able to wield over organisations by requiring adherence to a certain world view in order to achieve and maintain diversity champion status for example. It you hold yourself out as the expert and arbiter of what is good practice and you are wrong are you liable for their consequences that flow from that under s111(2) EA.

If you read Allison’s press release you can see the wider implications. To what extent can these providers be held liable for their schemes etc.

Just to add to the reply from @spannasaurus

"Yes a limited company can be a charity. Usually limited by guarantee"

In the legal case against the Women's Institute last year, the claim was against the overarching National Federation, rather than an individual Women's Institute.

The National Federation of Women's Institutes is a charity that is organised as a 'charitible company limited by guarantee'. It was incorporated back in 1990.

Prior to that, I'm not too sure what their status was.

The advice given by accreditation schemes is exactly what Allison's case is about so the outcome of the appeal has obvious consequences. Were stonewall in a position to induce discrimination because GCC was a member of their scheme

I agree with you, but Akua Reindorf holds that:

"The appeal could have far-reaching consequences for EDI advice given to employers by external trainers & accreditation schemes."

https://nitter.poast.org/akuareindorf/status/2052742996710363406#m

If someone could just get her along here to answer questions, I'd be obliged.

I'm not sure it will

When I said that's how I remember it in my earlier reply to you I was saying that you were not misremembering.

I just took a a look at the CA judgment. The contents of any Stonewall advice or training was not at issue, merely the complaints. So I’m confused by the idea that this will affect training advice or provision in general.

In this case it would be the effect on GCCs membership and rating in the stonewall champion scheme for not following the erroneous advice that would be where the inducement could be

Where do we arrive at this being about DEI training then? Where an outside company provides erroneous advice on the law (and for a fee) how can one argue there is inducement? “Or else, what?” So to speak.

That's how I remember it. Tribunal said stonewall weren't in a position to be able to induce Garden Court

i might be out to lunch but I didn’t think the case was about Stonewall’s published advice. I thought it hinged on whether Medcalf’s specific complaint about AB and exhortation to “do the right thing” constituted inducement to discrimination. Have I misremembered that?

Yes a limited company can be a charity. Usually limited by guarantee

Well with Ben Cooper & Akua Reindorf on her team i think the chances will be looking good

Will there be any intervenors in this case?

im wondering about whether a staff organisation could apply - where employees are being forced to discriminate against women due to organisational policy - could they request clarification about the lawfulness of their employer?

Did Stonewall Equality Ltd cause Garden Court Chambers to discriminate against Ms Bailey contrary to section 111(2) of the Equality Act 2010?

I'm aware I'm parading my own ignorance here but I thought Stonewall was a charity. Is Stonewall Equality Ltd a non-charitable offshoot or can a limited company also be a charity?

The implications of this judgment are potentially huge. There have been a number of organisations who have profited from selling training that misrepresented the law. Is there an obligation on bodies that hold themselves out as expert voices to ensure they don’t present a campaigning position as legal fact?

This is much wider than AB and Stonewall. Potentially all diversity training providers will have to reassess their approach. Possibly also trade unions?

The converse point maybe how much of the reliance on the training providers was reasonable and should the purchaser of the training do their own research?

On the face of it you might argue that a barrister’s chambers would not have relied on Stonewall’s advice being legal experts themselves. However, in this specific case SW characterised AB’s comments as transphobic and GCC upheld their complaint whereas AB’s comments were expressions of a protected belief. Consequently, SW mischaracterisation of AB’s comments appears to have directly led to GCC’s discriminatory conduct. However, there may be an argument that GCC’s specialist knowledge breaks the chain of causation. That would not necessarily prevent a more general duty not to mislead if such misleading information leads to discrimination.

It’s a really interesting area of liability for the actions of others.

Thanks, @Another2Cats and @ChazsBrilliantAttitude.

When you remind me like that, I really have trouble getting my head around why Allison lost in the Court of Appeal.

What we can infer is that they thought the CA’s approach was wrong, or have so,thing to add to it. if they approved of the CA’s ruling they wouldn’t waste time repeating the same content, and would let the prior judgement stand by refusing to hear the appeal.

That may not mean the matter is decided in AB’s favour though.

Right, I need dates! My calendar fills up alarmingly quickly these days.

Clearly the Supreme Court do feel this is something for them to decide upon so I guess we’ll just have to be satisfied with that.