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

I'm not TT but here's the (little) I know: those of us who applied for remote observation for the continuation tomorrow were told to reapply on the afternoon of Friday 18th 'as this is when the CVP links will be released.'

We did, and since then - tumbleweed.

I'm hoping it means they may have settled with Lorna, but honestly who knows?

I imagine if access is granted TT will cover again as I think it's all online this time.

TT are tweeting today.

I can't copy and paste all day, but here's the background from TT so far

"The ET of Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council resumes this morning. She is taking her former employer, Manchester City Council, to employment tribunal for unfair dismissal on the grounds of religion or belief. Ms Young is a Catholic, holds gender critical beliefs. She was dismissed, among other grounds, for social media activity.

Today's witness is Jenny Osborne, Assistant Director for Population Health. She was unwell during the earlier days of this hearing. Our previous reports are here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council

We are a collective of volunteer journalists and are 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.

A motion adopted by Manchester City Council has been frequently referred to in proceedings. It is included on our Substack in full and in the following tweets.

Abbreviations
LY/C - Lorna Young, claimant
MCC/R - Manchester City Council, respondent
NR - Nathan Roberts, barrister for C
AM - Aileen McColgan, barrister for R
EJ/ - Employment Judge Dunlop
JO - Jenny Osborne, Assistant Director for Population Health at Manchester City Council

GC - gender critical beliefs, sex realist
GI - gender identity or gender identity belief, a person’s internal sense of gender: male, female, both, neither, or another category.
DD direct discrimination
SS same sex or single sex
WESC Women & Equalities select committee

TRAHR trans rights are human rights
LM line manager
BC Bev Craig, council leader
Hx & D - harassment and discrimination
Ix - investigation
RTW return to work
OH occupational health
TU - trade union
GG - GalwayGirl (C’s anonymous X account)
SC/SK - Sharmila Kar, C's line manager

JO - Jenny Osbourne
Dx - discrimination
SW - Stonewall or Stephen Whittle
BY - Barry Young
AMR - absence management review
HMD - Hella Monroy-Dominguez HR Officer
SOSR - Some other substantial reason
PCP - policy, criterion or practice

We expect to start reporting shortly."

TT

The hearing is being heard online as the Manchester court rooms are being refurbished. We expect to start soon.

TT

EJ - Lots of people have joined us online which is good. Encourage observers to turn off cameras. Permission given for Tribunal Tweets to report on X. Not aware of anyone else given permission to live tweet. No broadcasting and reporting.

EJ - keep microphones off when not speaking. Case being held on video as Manchester Tribunal offices are being refurbished.

EJ checks NR & AM can hear.
EJ outlines documents - same electronic bundles - 2077 page main and [800+ supplement and 200+ witness statement} and 307 further disclosure bundle, revised list of issues and cast list.

NR - Further disclosure after the hearing.
EJ - index shows when docs were disclosed.

EJ - Timetabling
NR - cross exam done by lunchtime.
AM & NR - No issues to raise.

EJ - on backup keyboard so noisy. Will mute. If doesn't let me know.
JO on mute

EJ - Disconnect and rejoin might help. She maybe frozen. I'll disconnect Miss Osborne.
JO - can you hear me?
EJ - gives warning - own evidence. Anyone in room with you? Any messaging programmes turned off.
JO- By myself. [makes sure phone turned off.]

EJ - checks what docs JO has and tells JO to take her time to get the right papers.
JO makes the non religious affirmation.

TT

EJ - late starting getting everyone logged on - may take break at 11.30am.
AM - 10 page statement - are contents accurate and truthful?
J - yes

NR - Emails sent by you in relation to appointment of decision maker (DM). Only email sent re the officer.
JO - only email I sent.
JO _ I sent decision notification to HR and Legal

NR - we don't have any emails that show what you recd.
JO - given to me as a paper copy by Alice.

TT

NR - you saw these 5 GG account tweets?
JO- yes
NR refers to some other tweets. Did you take them into account in yr DM (decision making)
JO - No I didn't.
NR Any others?
JO - No. [missed]

JO - go back - the purpose of other tweets was to establish a/c belonged to LY. I was aware of them and ready them. Focused of [gg tweets] when making decision.

[missed - re who saw JO email ]
NR - Disciplinary policy. "Investigator should" [missed] Report miss narici prepared. Proforma text section 3 - [too fast] Normal for an Ix report to summarise for or against and decide if there is a case to answer.
JO - yes

NR did you see Ms Narici's report?
JO - says what she saw - not her report and reommendation
NR - p1716 or report you recd

NR quotes - untenable position - these viwws are o compatible with an officer taking a role in EDI
JO - not a concusion. An expression.
NR - not compatible with their employment? Is this normal to express a view as to whether a post is compatible with employment?

TT

JO - it was a briefing not an Ix report?
NR - normal for a briefing?
JO - an indicator of a view?
NR - is that normal? JO I don't know
NR have you done Dx hearings b4?
JO - nt for a long time

NR - Labeled SOSR process not Dx process
JO - not aware
NR invites JO to read paragraph in papers we don't have.

NR - what does this mean? I struggle.
JO - despite MH condition, MCC felt necessary to progress action in context of her social media
NR - why not disciplinary?
JO - I don't know. You'd have to ask Legal and HR.

NR - refers to new doc. "We attach copy of council's statement on trans inclusion (SoTI) that appears on our website..." Your letter - SoTI - we recognise TWAW, TMAM, NB individuals are NB

NR - do accept last 2 sentences - "grossly offensive and therefore go beyon ... protected under the EqA" [missed too fast]
NR - you have same legal advice as Miss Carr?
JO - don't know.
NR was it approp
JO - capable of making an indepent decision

NR - do you think that was appropriate?
AM - specify briefing or letter?
NR - both. Will move on.
NR clear established institutional view that what the C had done was gross misconduct from SN, Miss Car and Hr briefing. and justifies dismissal.
JO - I can't comment

EJ - Observers in the lobby will be let in at a break. Legal teams to let EJ know if their staff need admitting.

TT

NR - note prepared after legal advice - did you read it?
JO - yes
NR - [quotes fast] relevant
JO - Yes
NR quotes fast relevant?
JO - Yes. Holding GC views is also protected in law and therefore not correct to say if GC views incompatible with EDI role.
NR - relevant.
JO - perhaps to prompt me that GC are relevant. [missed]

NR - fact C had raised making allegations of misconduct while labelled SOSR.

NR _ C's sol states mtg will consider [list of issues] & MCC position on transgender rights. C was asking for specificity on GC views.
JO - didn't see this.
NR No one told you?
JO - No. No one told me.

NR - C's statement you did read [quotes} It's not fair so little info received.
JO - yes.
NR - C sent on 8 March. 6 weeks to respond.

NR - quotes - copies of posts have now been provided and LY will be sent a report.... quotes - overview of some of the offensive and derogative material. Quoted but no explanation, is there?
JO - No.

TT

NR - C's sols after receiving report - only 5 example tweets- no explanation why they conflict with her role as EDI mgr, and asked for explanation. 2 weeks to reply. 2nd para - convert to formal meeting. Tweets treated as a whole so won't comment individually.
Jo I had to look at each tweet.
NR - so that's wrong isn't it? Do you agree incumbent on R to explain?

JO - I don't know. Outwith my role.
NR - You were responsible to make a fair decision [missed]
JO- I saw her statement 3 days b4 case.
NR - only fair to tell what was wrong with tweets.
J0 m- Umm. Yes.

NR - "I requested reasonable adjustments and not [dealt with]. She complains abt lack of information. She drew yr attention to conduct of other members in the EDI team. Screenshot - Mr Young "From now on they are GCL Gender Critical Losers" Is this is line with R's values?

TT

JO - I asked HR that these had been picked up and appropriately dealt with.
NR _ who?
JO - Alice.
NR - neither you or Alice have not given evidence abt this? Why?
JO - I felt a separate matter to be picked up and Ix. Outwith my remit. Wanted an assurance being dealt with. Picked up. Expect it followed through.

JOO - she alleged BY and SK. SK employed by another org and picked up. BY - verbal question. R - are these comments in line with R's values?
JO - would need Ix. on face of it no.
NR Emps treated equally?
JO - yes

JO - yes a concern. fairly and equally.
NR - why not pause and ensure treated the same?
JO - we needed to [do this one] - large council don't know how many/ Wouldn't expect t hold up this one case because one case is being investigated? Not my job to Ix. I asked HR to Ix.

NR - dismissal letter after lawyers. Stand by it?
JO- Yes. Looking at it again one word I would change. I say this does not preclude you from holding GC views or [missed]
NR - have you spoken to witnesses? Not discussed it?
JO - absent from work. Meeting and discussion with legal.

NR - is is a coincidence that's the one word I crossexamined [witness]
JO - explains legal . It's cclearly wrong.
NR Its clearly wrong.
JO implies holding GC views might be incompatible.
NR the reason you are retracting it is because you were encouraged to scrutinise the letter.

[Must head out now, will catch up when I get back if nobody else has picked it up....]

NR - only fair to tell what was wrong with tweets.
J0 m- Umm. Yes.

Oh dear - team right side of history never seem to step back and think 'are we the baddies' until the tribunal starts

Apparently, anyone working for MCC cannot express the view that TW are not women on any social media, even if the account is wholly anonymous because of the internal social media policy. That is substantial over-reach in terms of freedom of speech. Especially given SC ruling.

And the Bananarama defence makes another appearance...

i'm struggling with understanding many of the abbreviations - what does M&H mean

TT

missed.
JO sometimes when I write, maybe its doing an English degree it's the way I describe things. Wasn't picked up by lawyers.
NR factual statement of what was in yr head.
J I disagree

NR - quote re GG account If she had not admitted to being owner oof GG account, is it fair to say you would not have found she was the owner?
JO - would have to consider that. Did not have to.
NR - given IO unable to establish?
JO - SN's redacted report - I didn't need to go there as LY's letter - I adjourned to take account.

NR - same trevi fountain photo and loss of fathers. Obvious? Relevant to council's reputation.
JO - team said they knew
NR - noone did.
JO - is relevant - not just council employees and we don't know who knows out there in the outside world in social media land

NR - upheld 4 against C, People like this should not be teachers. Interpretation Trans people shd not be people?
JO yes.
NR - remains your interpretation? [finds reference in bundle]
JO - yes - how I interpreted it.

[reference - finding papers]
NR - Govt draft Stat guidance on schools para 45 & 46 and main bundle - back to the tweet. Quote is a teacher discusses coming out to elementary students - now I take medicine and now I am a girl.
JO - american post.
NR elementary means primary school in age.

NR - GC people consider it profoundly wrong that taking medication chanes you from a man to a woman and that teaching children [this] is profoundlly wrong? JO Yes. I think reasonable -[missed]
NR an reasonable to express disagreemnt?
JO might reasinably disagree

NR - are you struggling to answer?
JO - I'm thinking abt how the post comes across.
NR when she says people like this, she is criticising people wo say things like this to students. More reasonable interpretation?
JO Yes.

TT

JO - Transgender person connected to saying people like this
NR why nt put yr interpretation to c?
JO - fair question. Submitted statement online. C hadn't made a statement around it. Only vicar tweets. She had all tweets - so could have responded.

NR She didn't know you were interpretating?
JO - Didn't go back to her. Not unfair. She had the opportunity to make comment on all tweets. My view was many might have interpreted that as anti transgender.

JO - It's the way they are expressed. Not holding the [GC] views.

NR - NB vicar tweet. Advice on whether NB is protected under EqA?
JO No.
NR read the article?
JO go back to the tweet please

JO No - didn't read the [Daily Mail] article.
NR - don't you think you shd have read it?

JO - not necessarily. No. Made comment in relation to this individual which referenced guidance by the devil. Headline "transwidow" and transperson whose a figure....
NR NB
JO Well NB person. Took it without the article - guided by devil is really offensive,

[Finding reference in files]
NR - NB vicar named Bingo. There's a link to a video interview - first NB priest, and BBC Merseyside intervew. Bingo vocal "Jesus loves sparkly eyeshadow". Epihany from reading Genesis and the Old Testament. God guided me. Posted by GC account, not Bingo.

NR - do you accept Bino was not shy of self promotion?
JO - Well. Yes. Perhaps.
NR - God's guidance. Do you accet a Catholic would think the opposite?
JO Yes

NR - Though jarring [if you don't believe] you are aware the devil is source of evil in catholic faith?
JO - Yes
NR quotes from the Pope. Devil is the great deceiver?

TT

JO - entitled to disagree. Must express views in way that's reasonable and proportionate. Not expressed in a way that is reasonable and respectful.

NR - [missed - C eplained her regret]
JO - thught I had.
JO - didn't eplicitly refer to it but was relevant - shed expressed regret. Good to hear she regretted the way she'd used language and had gone so far.
NR _ so wouldn't in future?

JO - regret doesn't mean she won't do it again. I did note it.
EJ - adjourn until 12 o'clock.

TT

Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council Part 2 AM

NR - we've covered the 2 tweets C wrote. the next two are ones she liked. At the time you had to go onto profile and look at what she had liked.
JO - not aware. I was told visible. Not a Twitter user.
NR - you don't know how others see it.
JO - No - not in detail.

NR - TI is the most evil homophobic and mysoginist ideology of my lifetime. Which words object to?
JO _ TI being evil. Well
NR - do you accept that think TI is H & M sits at teh core of GC belief. Are you saying they are not allowed to say that?
JO - need to be very very careful at the council so as not to cause offence to wode spreadreviews, particularly in EDI>

Jo no- you have to be exceptionally careful.
NR - can someone say H & M in personal capacity when working at council?
JO - not in that way. Language used is not approp for an officer. You can hold views - way that epressed.
JO Entitled to hold views
NR - yes or no - are you saying cannot hold employment if in private capacity say TI is H&M?
JO - O. Yes you can hold those views. How you express them.

EJ - If OK to hold view that TII is homophobic and mysoginistic, how do you express it without using those words?
JO I see what you are saying. I can see you can articulate it in that way.

NR - is someone entitled to say misogyny is evil?
JO - illadvised. Referring to anything as evil. In my role I'd never refer to anything as evil. Not an appropriate term. It doesn't mean they would necessarily lose their employment. Might want to investigate. Look at context.

NR - strong & you didn't like them. These are expressions of GC.. [missed]
NR move one.

NR - quotes C applauded. Did you understand to mean TP generally were paedophiles/
JO - I did. Generally groomng children whch implies peadophilia.
JO - Grooming - most common term is around seual exploitation.
NR Do you stand by that. Yr WS says TP are a danger.

JO - less strong term.
NR Now? Transpeople generally are paedophiles is implication of the video?
JO - grooming our children.
NR you make a serious allegation - TP generally are paedophiles TPGAP
JO - that what I interpreted

NR - do you interpret it? What is yr case now. saying today TPGAP?
JO - you are referring to the video rather than the papers

Finding the papers.
JO - Yes - where s says this is so much more than men wanted ...literal war against we as women are o cosplay characters.
NR I am asking abt paedophilia. that TWGAP?
JO That was the implication. That's why I draw that interpreattion.
Do you maintain interpretation that TPGAP?
JO - Yes. That's what I agree.

AM intervenes - Sometimes TW and TP.
NR - whatever JO said - Do you maintain that the interpretation that TWGAP? JO yes.
NR - do you agree not transcribed properly? Gibbebrish.
JO - yes
NR - Poor transcription?
JO Yes NR - watch the video?
JO - No

TT

NR - the DQST says "lick me". Do you know the phenomenon of DQST?
Jo - No
NR - Important?
JO - take a snapshop.
NR - dismissed the C after 20 years without looking at teh video?
JO - no

JO - [missed din't know what DQST is]
NR _ Big neon light with lick me and men walking around with plastic covering their ballsacks. Are people entitled to object? [missed]
JO - association with CSE, grooming children association most people will make.
NR no evidence that C said TWAP>
JO agrees

JO - would have been really helpful too have a discussion about these matters. NR - Reasonable adjustment - you could have written to her.
JOO - Yes.

NR - you seem to suggest that immoderate to say that TI is M&H.
JO and evil.
NR is it immoderate to say TW are not women?
JO - how does that relate to info in here?
NR judge will stop me, please answer.

JO - before Supreme Court judgment.
NR so immoderate?
JO - Council had zero tolerance policy
NR no language that is moderate enough for GC belief.
EJ - Yr question is in present. I'd like to understand from JO if there is a difference in time and if so what that is.

JO - at time staff were expected too follow policy and motions at time so saying TWANW cuts across what council stated at the time.
NR C was on an anon Twtter account. What's yr remit? What people say in privacy of their own homes?
JO - No - public forum - social media policy

NR - aware account was anonymous. Nowhere do you engage with fact not was an anonymous account?
JO - No.
NR duty to protect free speech rights.
JO [deep sigh] - if views can be identified and associated with council - have to express respectful.
NR - right to shock and offend

JO - Accept that. Judgement as council officers as to what is respectful and treats people with dignity.
NR C's views were not in association to the council. You can tweet in yr personal capacity. And are responsible for private account.

JO - media policy and code of conduct - must express in line with council policy whether or not account IDs you are associated with the council.

NR - [reference] this was yr thinking at the time
JO - I disagree
NR - what was relevance of C's ill health to yr decision?

H & M = "homophobic and mysoginist" ?

TT

JO - clear mental and physical health was poor for sometime and she said it had impacted her decisions. I took that into account. I didn't accept the fact that MH condition that she couldn't make other choices.
NR Do you accept reduced capacity?
JO - yes OH report - accept.

Nr so saying because of yr ill health, unfair to dismiss you on misconduct?
JO - no - never concluded.
NR - think it was misconduct?
JO yes around her conduct

JO _ SOSR case.
NR did not ID that the misconduct had caused any harm?
JO no determination. We'll never know, will we?
NR - that C's continued employment would cause harm?
JO - missed.

NR - did not Id any past or future harm if continued employment?
JO - No.
NR 19 years no warnings. Evidence that has worked well with transpeople.
JO I didn't take it into acount.

NR - alternatives to dismissal - dismissed for her views?
JO - yes she was.

TT

AM - put to you that C dismissed for her views rather than what she had said or done. You implicated you agreed with that
JO _ SOSR - unable to conclude the disciplinary investigation, period of sustained absences and the views she exressed that I considered discriminatory that led to breakdown in trust and confidence.

AM - Need to e acreful and not lead you. CX was about the expression of views. Is it about the views?
JO - it was the way her views were expressed. I've been under scrutiny for some time and thought I'd made that clear, She's entitled to her views. It was the manner in which she articulated her views.

JO _ [BY tweet] was not part pf any paperwork at the time.
AM - no express reference to C's articulation of regret. para 4.2
JO - quotes reference to regret and remorse re NB thinker

AM - NR corrected you re GG account disclosed to other members of staff. Note re BY.
JO - [looks at it] yes - appended to briefing AM - where would you have had that info?
JO - in the bundle I was given.

AM - asks JO to read the paragraphs
JO Yes, BY replies. Yes - even made aware of an alleged Twitter account. BY says yes by EDI team members.

JO - quotes - [name missed] LY herself made me aware of another account used to debate with Tara Hewitt. Sopha Higgins was aware the account was called GG and sent her the link.

EJ - give opportunity to NR to go back.
NR will stick with that answer. One follow up q.
JO did not have any of BY's tweets in front of her. She agreed. 1846.
EJ - as you have [asked the question] , Miss Osborne do you want to comment on that?
JO - looking at clip from an X twtter account - Annie Wallace. can't see anything from BY.

JO - don't see anything with BY's names. I see the point you are making.
EJ - did you Id the dates the tweets were made.
JO - over 4 or 5 months.
EJ releases JO from her affirmation.

TT

NR has in mind exchanging written submissions at 4pm today to start again midmorning.
AM - something nearly ready - and had anticipated overnight. Ready by say 4.30pm.
EJ - hopes to start at 10am

NR - doesn't think need long orally.
AM - lengthy submission - lots of claims. Almost 80 pages. Not much to say [orally].
EJ - better if we say 6pm [exchange of written submissions]? And send to tribunal at 6pm.

Court resumes at 11.30am tomorrow. Observers should join at 5 or 10 minutes past 11am.

ENDS

@RoseInAPot

thank you for posting - I and I suspect many others are grateful.