Lorna Young v Manchester City Council, Employment Tribunal, May 2026

Oh please please get out the popcorn 🍿

This is so good.

NR: You say EA breached?
SN: No, but implications.
NR: What implications?
SN: The way the tweets were phrased.

The Bananarama Defence making an early appearance. Did anyone have that on their Tribunal Bingo Card?

I also had “Taking the opinions of others as gospel” <stamps dabber down with a flourish>

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

[AM re-exam]

AM: On disclosure questions - can you remember when you were asked, can you remember when?

SN: I think 2024 AM: And C made an SAR as well as lawyers re disclosure.

SN: I think that was 2024 also.

AM: My understanding is that first lawyer's request was 2025. So what were you being asked for in 2024?

SN: Same kinds of information, I think there were multiple requests.

AM: Do you know where in the Council the material you disclosed to the SAR would have been held?

SN: Legal, HR I think

AM: So when you said "I have disclosed", that cd have been re SAR not re this case?

SN: I think so.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

J: What is your professional background?
SN: Housing & regeneration, commercial & energy - only high level involvement in equalities
J: Any training
SN: Not in any great detail, and at a high level.

J: And in terms of current affairs debate, trans / GC - what involvement?
SN: No great extent [I think]

J: You said to NR this morning, re GC views, you said you are quite neutral but there are ways of saying that are not acceptable.
SN: Yes

J: So what would it have been acceptable for the C to say?
SN: Um, nothing derogatory, no singling out of individuals, being kind.

J: So if she had said she disagreed with MCC that TWAW, is that acceptable?
SN: There's her personal opinion, but then the work context, so there's a line.

J: Not sure if you are saying it's OK, or OK but not at work?
SN: Need to support the Council in this space at work.

J: I'm not trying to make this difficult, but, I think you are saying that in her role at work she should not have said she disagreed with the motion?
SN: I think, challenging in that role.

J: "Challenging"?
SN: Yes

NR: Example 4 on your IX report. Actual tweet is p1772. What does "trans-age" mean?
SN: Ppl that feel a different age inside
NR: Such as adults who ID as children?
SN: Yes
NR: You seriously say C disagreeing with that is gross misconduct?

Huh, what? ... words fail me

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

J: Does report engage with the OH report into C?
NR: J, that in fact came after the report.

J: You said you had no IX experience before at MCC but did elsewhere?
SN: Yes, in previous rule I did and IX but it was a lot simpler than this, and with straightforward conclusion.

J: You had done just one?
SN: Yes

J: You did training re IXs?
SN: Yes MCC training - I think a few hours.

J: [asks re SN job titles then and now - SN answers]

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
9m
NR: We already know that some of what you cite is simply standard gender critical views.
SN: Agree but that is for DX officer to decide on.
SN: Volume of view, some were derogatory.

NR: You say the tweets were in line with C views etc expressed to witnesses. Those comments by C went no further at all than being basically gender-critical. You are connecting alleged expressed at work to misconduct. You are making a connection that doesn't exist
SN: Yes you

NR: The report summary. You say your report is balanced?
SN: Yes it says that

NR: What was 'balanced'?
SN: Had taken everything into account

NR: There is not one word in favour of the C.
SN: As balanced as it cd be without talking to her.

NR: You say, not compatible with being an EDI manager. It's her views that think make her unsuitable.
SN: No, the volume and the manner of expression. But I agree, should have been made clearer.

NR: You talk of MCC values. Includes the TWAW motion from a year earler?
SN: No, not about position on trans, about overall MCC values.

NR: Normally in a misconduct IX there is detail of X action -> Y harm. You don't make such an analysis?
SN: No, not here

NR: You nowhere refer to GC views protected?
SN: No

NR: No reference to freedom of speech?
SN: No

NR: No mention of all of this being outside work?
SN: No

NR: No mention of GG being an anonymous account and no real proof it's C?
SN: Does go over similarities to C etc

NR: This report says, you can't be gender critical and work in EDI?
SN: No, doesn't say that, was about volume and manner.

NR: "Volume" including simple statements of GC beliefs?
SN: Disagree.
NR: No further Qs.

Yes, it's horrible. I think there was some kind of 'jigsaw identification' of the account which shows a pretty motivated and determined effort to identify and then punish wrong-think.

Judge: What did you think the EA said about tweets?

A HR investigating officer being pulled up by the Judge on the fact that she doesn't have a clue what the Equality Act actually says.😂

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
18m
NR: You say, you "had to" review "offensive and derogatory" material. You said p1567 you wanted to put on record that you had found this IX v difficult. You say "frankly shocking", do you mean the tweets
SN: My reflection on everything not just tweets - what ppl had said to me.

SN: Perhaps shd not have put in personal view
NR: When you say "shocking" do you mean the examples you give that we're about to go to?
SN: Yes, shocking in various degrees.

NR: Let's look at your examples. p1566. You quote 1-5 tweets that you had, you also cite a WS that someone had seen something else on twitter, and a TikTok video. One is saying "don't give a fuck about your pronouns", you didn't have the tweet.

SN: Yes I did, in evidence pack.
NR: I can say certainly that this has never been disclosed. Not to the C at the time, not to the court.
SN: It was an appendix -
NR: It can't have been. Not sent to C re final of DX.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
13m
NR: This tweet was not complained of by SH originally. NR: You refer it to Alfie Hewett.
SN: [missed]
J: [Goes through the IX report, its reference, which is to AH statement]. If there had been a copy of the shot, it would have been a different evidence number.

SN: Um number 19.
NR: That is not the same.
SN: If we are talking about AH statement - no there isn't a tweet copy
J: So you put something in IX report that you had not seen?
SN: Relying on AH statement

NR: So you don't know if AH correct?
SN: No
NR: And if it was correct, you don't know context?
SN: No.

*NR: Example 4 on your IX report. Actual tweet is p1772. What does "trans-age" mean?
SN: Ppl that feel a different age inside

NR: Such as adults who ID as children?
SN: Yes

NR: You seriously say C disagreeing with that is gross misconduct?

SN: As I've said, it's the sum of it all

NR: This is not "shocking", is it?

SN: It cd be to those ppl?

NR: That is who the Council is protecting?

*NR: Are 'trans-age' ppl protected under the EA2010?

[I don't think SN answers]*

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
23m
J: So you mean you thought, if someone tweeted something racist that would be a breach of EA?
SN: Yes.

NR: If you are wrong about that, this IX report is based on false assumption about the EA?
SN: EA not the only basis for report.
SN: But yes the EA bit might be wrong [I think is what SN said]

NR: p1564 the list of evidence. (3) "allegations of 27/6" reported to JJ. Why did you include the original SH allegations, when the IX was re 'GalwayGirl' and not those?
SN: I can't now recall

NR: Allegation 1 - let's read the para - you concluded that evidence + witness IVs it is believed - you mean you believe?
SN: Yes
NR: - that GG acc belongs to LY and if so, that is gross misconduct. Yes?
SN: Yes

NR: Is it normal for an IX officer - rather than DX officer - to conclude "gross misconduct"
SN: Yes I accept
NR: You overstepped?
SN: Yes accept.

NR: does this not show you apporached the whole IX with a closed mind not an open one?
SN: Don't accept that. For example I knew I needed to speak to C
NR: We covered this morning so won't pursue.

NR: You say you'd had response from LY saying the correspondence had been confusing - you put in inverted commas - to belittle?
SN: No
NR: Do you agree it was confusing?
SN: Can see why it might have been.

All work comes from the excellent work of the Tribunal Tweets team.

Please like and subscribe.

Monday 18 May 2026
Afternoon Session

Good afternoon; this is day 6 in the hearing at employment tribunal of Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
39m
The court is taking lunch break at present; we expect the hearing to begin at 13:50.

C/LY - Lorna Young, the claimant
NR - Nathan Roberts, barrister for C

R/MCC - Manchester City Council, respondent
AM - Aileen McColgan, barrister for R

When the hearing begins, NR will complete his cross-examination of MCC witness Sarah Narici (SN), and the court will then hear from MCC witness Sharmila Kar (SK), Joint Director of Equality, Inclusion and Engagement.

We're a collective of volunteer citizen journalists & not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio above) which funds our digital & some travel costs.

We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcript of proceedings

NR: [ref p1562 SN's IX report]
NR: was left as draft. Is this the only draft ever?
SN: Yes as far as I'm aware

NR: And we have no record or this being sent to anyone?
SN: [missed]
NR: p1563 - box with 'details of any regulatory - ' you say, implications re EA2010. What were these?
SN: Report doesn't say any.
NR: That is why I am asking you.

SN: Implications in respect of, the tweets that had been shared.
NR: You are going to have to give more details. What EA implications?
SN: Way in which expressions made, re ppl protected by the EA.

NR: You say EA breached?
SN: No, but implications.
NR: What implications?
SN: The way the tweets were phrased.

NR: Are you aware that the EA2010 does not cover what people say on Twitter? Do you accept?
SN: You have to show me the reference before I can say
NR: You didn't know the EA doesn't cover what ppl say on twitter?
SN: Need to see the reference.

NR: It's an open Q. Did you know it doesn't?
SN: Don't know

J: What did you think the EA said about tweets?
SN: About the way ppl say things.

How did they find it was her?

Bloody chilling.

Yes its Glasgow Girls.

Ex Mermaid and Pro Stonewall colleagues went on a deep witchhunt to catch a witch.

A few GC likes and curtains on Lorna's career. The likes were too horrible to even sent on the MCC email network. The internet would have been scandalised.

Yes - GalwayGirl

GG was a Twitter account called Galway Girl. It was an anonymous account that Lorna Young had which people she worked with found out was hers and was then used against her.

I’m assuming “GG” is the name of a Twitter/X account? This reminds me exactly why I have a separate account for anything GC and I don’t tell people who I am.

“The suffragette colours are transphobic”. Crikey.

Thank you for the sterling job posting and condensing the tweets also @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts
I have applied for remote access as I would love to watch some of the body language of these so-called professionals.
I've been thinking a lot about the way EDI teams have got themselves into quite a pickle via lanyards and flag-waving, giving a perhaps unintentional free-rein to activists who then think that the prevailing dominant position (that they occupy) is the only way to think.
Not sure if others have found the podcast 'This isn't working' but it's an interesting insight into HR and investigates how we've got here and how to return some grown-ups back into the rooms/depts (HR should be protecting companies from litigation, not doing the opposite that we so often see in these tribunals!)

We're on a lunch break.

Kudos to the Manchester clerk team. They've a good remote set up and are quick to provide access. If you have time this week come along to show support for Lorna Young.

For those interested in remote access, I've been advised:

• Contact the Tribunal at [email protected].
• Include Lorna Young v MCC in the subject & body
• "Request to observe remotely” in the subject heading to request a remote link.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR Back to WS: para 100. Previously undisclosed but we have this now, maybe not all of it. Para 101, do u accept is an undoc mtg
Yes

NR I dont think we've had disclosure re para 102. Nor the draft IO or meeting w Tracy
SN That info shld have been shared

NR I dont have v much left. Wld u rather break early or late
AM I have a few Qs

J Y'll continue after lunch. How will we work this pm.
AM Sharmila is next

J Will we finish w her this afternoon
NR I expect so

J We'll adjourn until 1.50pm

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR She worked for Mermaids befor MCC. Given this work I'm aware of dog whistles and nuance used by anti trans groups. The Suffragette colours are transphobic. She's saying to demonstate GC via colours
SN It;s not saying that directly

NR She recognises a shift in who the C is following. She says this did happen as she got unwell. Ms W had noted a shift in her tweets
SN She said her interpret of how X worked

NR Had become increasinly GC
SN That's what she says she saw

NR Whether it is ...AH described as confessing to a 2nd account?
I dont know

NR This is fairer. She told them nothing apart from a ref to Manch. Does GG refer to Manch?
SN I'd need to look at the profile. I dont recall

NR I do have personal fears about victimisation and dont want to be targetted by her. If someone w antitrans views I dont want as my LM and may have to move
NR We know "anti trans views" is a by word for GC
AM I dont think that's fair
SN Potentially, yes

NR She told u, AH initially shared the link and didnt understand some it was saying. why interview her
SN It had already been scheduled. I knew nothing of her views

NR Looking at Miss Coles interview: I saw anti T msgs by liking JKR tweets
SN Thats a generic statement. I'm not aware of what she's referencing

NR Why interview AS who had left 9 months ag
SN I felt I needed to and she'd been ref in others WSs

NR AH had said she was on WA group. Did SH say u should
SN No

NR p1474: [reads re inapprop for being EDI manager and likely to be trust issues] She knew the maj had seen the GG content
SN Potentially. I dont know

NR In yr WS: para 95-98 at least. Is all material on docs not disclosed
SN [cant hear] The email shld have been disclosed.

NR Even now we dont have him attaching the doc
SN I'd need to dbl check that

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR HR looked into SM posts

NR U refer to int audit and then u refuse to share the info
SN Declined

NR Y're aware she attempted suicide the next week
SN I wasnt made aware of this. Just C unable to participate. Wasnt told whilst doing the Ix. Hr didnt tell me about it

NR They allowed u to continue following it
Yes

NR The ppl u interviewed were Jenny cole, AS BY and ?
Yes, her current and former team

NR Looking at BY interview: Lorna had encouraged me to apply for the role and had a lot of respect for her
NR: I picked up it was a t'phobic acount. Are u aware al ot say GC is transphobia [reading fast re kemi B and KJK] Someone has liked a tweet and he finds that offensive
SN Yes

NR Scotland and GI, what a terrible day. Y're aware this is about gender reform in Scotland
Yes

NR He's saying the C is GC
SN Potentially it cld be read like that

NR His email to ? re "so-called GC views" on p1392. LY expressed her concerns [reads out] His way of describing GC views
Yes

NR Back to his interview, he told u - asked about contacting the account and said where
NR he worked TWAW etc. I wld ask for an informal chat to discuss their views
Yes

NR p1464: he gave account of JJs joint mtg: all other EDI members have read the account and we had concerns about working w someone w these opinions
Yes

NR His final observations: I feel conflicted as LY so supportive of me in the past. I feel sad. How did it come to this
NR He felt an informal convo to discuss views. AN interview for disc isnt a convo is it? Did u ever think we're going too hard and shld have mediation in team
SN Felt needed convos w team and needed a fill picture. Unfortunately I didnt have..

NR Michele wheeler was next interviewee, on disability and age, she was new and never met the C
Yes, Correct
NR Why interveiw her
She'd seen the contents of GG. I wanted to understand if she'd seen and if had caused distress

NR Do u think undermining of the c? JJ held a mtg. U held Ix mtgs with each separetly. This process fuelled sense of drama abou the tweets
SN Was already a sense of drama w a secret X account. Abida also being asked about hidden. JJ took the correct action to bring tog and have a convo and dial things down. I needed to piece tog the info I didnt want to d with the C
Miss Wheeler said lots of T'phobic views. Is GC t'phoboc
SN Not necessarily

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR U say an independent Ix and must caution you and give u a prelim warning it may be gross misconduct
SN Yes

NR Who decided the GG shld be treated as gross misconduct
SN I cant recall the detail. The policy of discrimination.

NR What was the GM
SN Re the tweets?

NR Yes. How the views expressed. Compatibility w the role
NR Did anyone think to discuss the GG w the C before starting a disc process?
[missed]
NR U told her that had been Cx plural?
NR But not what they wereSN Not at that point
NR and referred to asking Qs re specific posts
SN I said u need to review the …

NR U had specific posts u wanted to ask her about
SN I cant recall which posts

NR So u agree to share info, to this invitation re new allegations which she hasnt seen
SN U cld put likr that. That was the plan

NR U reneged on yr plan
SN Things had moved on [extremely fast] Wrt to this, I stated why shared I have already said.

NR U's turned against the C for being GC
No. I had an open mind. I wanted to talk to her. Maybe I shld have been clearer but that was my intention.
SN I wasnt willing to share info until I knew was GG. Maybe I shld have been more specific

NR U refer to int audit team who had undertaken an assessment
Yes

NR The only email we have even now from int audit is on p1451
NR Remind yourself of it. This is not from int audit
SN No it's from HR

NR So we dont have the int audit review. Did u
SN Not at that point no

NR This is v vague, did u see it
SN This is the only info I've seen. Was told it verbally

NR Yr letter was sent Sept 16, and the audit wasnt done til the following day
SN [missed]

NR The C wanted info and requested this the following day
SN Yes

NR U respond on p1445 [reading] who were u refering to re HR and EDI
SN AH and ??

NR SH?
Yes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR They were all GC news
SN Yes
NR They'd whipped themselves up by finding a GC account
SN [missed]

NR On 16 Feb this letter to the C is about Ix into GG account
SN Yes

NR U use a passive voice, common from the R, re an initial Ix and whether to Ix further. U use
the same passive voice. Who did the initial review
SN Understand Nick McMillan looked at it and then referred account to HR

NR who concluded need further Ix
SN With HR but cant recall who

NR Who made the decison. Was it you
SN It was made w HR. I cant recall