would some kind legal bod take pity and explain Allison Bailey's case please?

[seethesuninwintertime]

confession time I'm a solicitor but this is so not my professional world.... I'm struggling to figure out what is actually pleaded.

I know an employee can sue for sex(etc) discrimination against own employer but neither the barristers' chambers nor Stonewall are her employers [just revealing total lack of technical knowledge here...]

All dummies guide level explanations gratefully received.

Have you tried reading her website for the information you are seeking?

allisonbailey.co.uk/updates/

This explains the Stonewall part, if you haven't already seen it OP.

allisonbailey.co.uk/the-case-against-stonewall/

Not my area anymore either, and could be wrong, but I believe that she is claiming direct discrimination (ie less favourable treatment) on grounds of her gender critical beliefs which come within the protected characteristic of religion or belief.

Stonewall is a party because the Equality Act 2010 prohibitions catch third parties who induce or cause a person (in this case the Chambers) to treat another less favourably where this is unlawful discrimination.

Barristers, although self employed, are specifically covered in the Act.

"Barristers, although self employed, are specifically covered in the Act."

every day is a school day!

YourHair thank you for this. has the position now changed?

"Section 111 says the following (and it is easier to read if you substitute “Stonewall” in place of Person “A” and “Garden Court” in place of Person “B”; I am Person “C”):

111 Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions

(1) A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).

(2) A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(3) A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.

(5) Proceedings for a contravention of this section may be brought—

(a) by B, if B is subjected to a detriment as a result of A’s conduct;

(b) by C, if C is subjected to a detriment as a result of A’s conduct;

(c) by the Commission.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), it does not matter whether—

(a) the basic contravention occurs;

(b) any other proceedings are, or may be, brought in relation to A’s conduct.

(7) This section does not apply unless the relationship between A and B is such that A is in a position to commit a basic contravention in relation to B.

(8) A reference in this section to causing or inducing a person to do something includes a reference to attempting to cause or induce the person to do it.

(9) For the purposes of Part 9 (enforcement), a contravention of this section is to be treated as relating—

(a) in a case within subsection (5)(a), to the Part of this Act which, because of the relationship between A and B, A is in a position to contravene in relation to B;

(b) in a case within subsection (5)(b), to the Part of this Act which, because of the relationship between B and C, B is in a position to contravene in relation to C.

Our position is that there is a “relationship” according to ss.111(7) and (9) between Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers that is necessary for section 111 to have effect. Primarily, this relationship was through the Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Scheme, of which Garden Court was a member and through which Stonewall provided them goods and services. My case is that Stonewall unlawfully applied pressure which instructed, caused and induced me to be investigated by my chambers because I had campaigned against Stonewall specifically, and in favour of gender critical feminism more broadly; further that this pressure was applied by Stonewall onto Garden Court via the Diversity Champions Scheme, which gave Stonewall the relationship they needed to impose a threat that detriment would follow to Garden Court if they did not so yield to the pressure that Stonewall was applying. As a result of this, my claim alleges, the unlawful discrimination and victimisation by Garden Court Chambers was instructed, caused and induced by Stonewall, and therefore that Stonewall’s actions were unlawful by reason of section 111."

"Have you tried reading her website for the information you are seeking?"

No Ted I have not.

I think I get it hair -

has the nature of the "basic contravention" changed as a result of the lastest hearing? But not Stonewall's connection to the matter at hand.

Did Garden court tell Stonewall to bog off or did it take some sort of action against her? (again- baffled by relationship between barristers and clerks)

Sorry to hijack the thread OP but you don't happen to be a female solicitor with experience in indirect sex discrimination in the delivery of goods and services?

Specifically a natal female survivor of sexual violence being treated less favourably than natal male survivors by a rape crisis services? And would your employer let you take this on? If so can you drop me a DM please?

Apologies again for the hijacking. As you were.

me? god no, no experience there Sarah.

this judgment from the earlier strike out is useful.

And it even explains what a barristers' chambers actually IS and what the relationship between barristers and clerks is which has been a mystery to me for the past quarter century... so bonus there.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603670b4d3bf7f0ab2f070b3/Ms_A_Bailey_-v-Stonewall_Equality_Limited___others_2202172_2020-_preliminary_judgment.pdf

Stonewall wrote to her chambers telling them to get rid of her or they would be downgraded on the Stonewall Diversity index, if I remember correctly. In a swift nutshell.

YourHair thank you for this. has the position now changed?

The part I linked to was a while back. Since Allison wrote that, the judge accepted at a preliminary hearing that there is a relationship between Allison's chambers and Stonewall (the diversity champions scheme). Stonewall were trying to deny that there is a relationship between them and her chambers.

Did Garden court tell Stonewall to bog off or did it take some sort of action against her?

They didn't tell them to bog off. When Allison tweeted about the launch of LGB Alliance (one of the reasons for the complaints against her), her chambers asked her to remove references to her chambers from her Twitter bio, then tweeted that they were investigating Allison, allegedly before telling her so. Allison also notes that, although they tweeted that they were investigating her, it doesn't seem that they actually were at that point.

Then Stonewall sent a complaint about Allison. From her site: Over a week later, I was informed that a complaint had been received from Stonewall and that this was now under investigation. When the complaint was provided to me, I saw that what Stonewall had written was misleading and disingenuous. The complaint included a threat that Stonewall’s relationship with chambers would be damaged unless chambers took action against me.

Stonewall's complaint can be read here: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PH-Bundle-pp-331-2-Stonewall-Complaint.pdf

And after Allison made Subject Access Requests to her chambers and Stonewall, she found out:

When I raised with Stonewall that I knew that they were withholding documents from me in breach of their legal obligations, and the possibility of a referral to the Information Commissioner, they responded by providing me with some documents. These show that:

Individuals within my chambers were liaising with Stonewall in the days following the launch of the LGB Alliance.

Stonewall were involved in eliciting complaints against me from third party organisations and directing them to my head of chambers.
The process by which chambers was deciding how to deal with me was being shared with Stonewall, and Stonewall were strategising on how to shape its outcome, including in relation to specific internal meetings at chambers.

“Roundtable” and “data gathering” meetings appear to have been held between my chambers and Stonewall in which I was discussed.
None of this was known to me at the time, and none of it was known to me until Stonewall provided its second response to the Subject Access Request.

IIRC from the live tweeting of the preliminary hearing, Allison also claims that she lost 50% of her earnings, and cases that suited her were given to junior barristers instead.

Sorry for the massive post. Is any of that helpful?

It's going to be an interesting trial to follow.

extremely helpful, thank you very much.

IAmSarah, you're sure to get some responses if you start a new thread on this subject. Best of luck xx

I think when I last read up on it part of it was that she was discriminated against for making a protected disclosure (i.e. she was was whistleblower) as she warned of the dangers related to allying with stonewall and I think that was even prior to the LGBA launch.

Article in the Times:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/38e8fcb2-5217-11ec-8d72-b8ab431649b1?shareToken=04d8714e5c92110f8ddecf3a4b86ad49

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

IAmSarah, you're sure to get some responses if you start a new thread on this subject. Best of luck xx

Thanks, looks like this has been sorted for me already

[quote Igneococcus]Article in the Times:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/38e8fcb2-5217-11ec-8d72-b8ab431649b1?shareToken=04d8714e5c92110f8ddecf3a4b86ad49[/quote]
There are comments with 500 likes on the article. No debate is toast.

“. No debate is toast”

I read that as “there isn’t even one debate that’s toast” :)