Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 2

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April at 10am. If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access as early as possible.

Send an email to

[email protected]

The subject heading of the email request should read

“MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – Case number 2202172/2020 - Ms A Bailey – 25th April 2022.

Then ask for the pin for the online access.

You will be contacted with instructions on how to observe the hearing.

When joining the live tribunal
select the video and mic that are not crossed out, this is the courts vid and mic.
On the next page select NONE on the drop down windows for vid and mic, these are your own video and mic.

You must be muted so as to not disturb the hearing.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB
SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW
RW = Robin White assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell assisting AH
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GC except AB)
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 1 👇

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

It's tetchy this morning.

Did IO turn to RMW and laugh??

I missed it...

I didn't see if she did. She interacted with her.

They’re being very elaborately polite but the gloves are off here, aren’t they….

They haven't, but I like to think the Court Clerks have been browsing the threads and discussions where people have been saying that universal muting and better technical facilitation is possible.

I haven't been able to listen in until today. Allison has a beautiful voice.

This is feisty. I guess Employment Tribunals are used to dealing with emotion.

It's spicy already. AB called out IO for turning to White and laughing, I was looking at AB and didn't see either oh for a rewind button

It's interesting that Allison is able to go immediately to any of the given pages that Stephen Lue was having such immense difficulty finding the other day when being questioned by BC.

The gloves are definitely off.

But it's not that controversial. AB doesn't believe in gender identity and the concept has no status in law. She is entitled to object to that being embedded in the culture of her workplace.

I was a bit taken aback to see all these ideas: transmen, cisgender, transwomen are women etc. being discussed in the late noughties

Press for Change (DOB 1992) has been working in the background and shadows for a very long time and been effective in that.

There's a helpful timeline: womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/

Mr Lue may have been distracted by his own loud tie.

Allison's statement is enraging!

Can't wait for Ben to get started on them.

@ickky thank you!

The more I read of this the more I hope she wins and it will give me the confidence and documentation to go to my HR. I work for an enormous organisation which has been completely captured. Women's rights boxes are ticked off via gender pay gap report and IWD. There are at least two trans weeks and most recently a new policy which states people can use whichever toilet they wish and if someone has issue with it they should talk to their manager.
Who's going to do that and risk their livelihood being seen as a trouble maker?!?
(Sorry off topic)

Have had a good read (not entire) of AB's statement. My admiration for her has increased even further. I think she is a brave woman.

Agree @theemperorhasnoclothes

Money is so tight but if a pound or two contributes in some small way to the defence of women's rights (and potentially gives some evidence of how many women are actively supporting the issue), I'll give what I can when I can.

I can't believe this is where we are in 2022.

'There are at least two trans weeks and most recently a new policy which states people can use whichever toilet they wish and if someone has issue with it they should talk to their manager.
Who's going to do that and risk their livelihood being seen as a trouble maker?!?'

Well quite.

Gosh, how unprofessional of IO.

I've missed a load of posts but listening earlier I was struck by the Stonewall document with the title sexual orientation and gender identity and AB's criticism. One thing not examined is that putting these two very different concepts together is a problem when one, gender identity, undermines the other, sexual orientation.

IO's questioning of AB is feeling pointless& fruitless isn't it?
she doesn't seem to be achieving anything

When AB was being taken through a Stonewall document and asked whether she found certain parts objectionable, I did wonder why AB didn't mention that her objections were a manifestation of her protected beliefs. Maybe that's because she doesn't want to only support one part of her case, discrimination in relation to belief, which could be argued by SW and GCC to leave the other parts, discrimination in relation to sex and sexuality, unsupported.

The question of addressing someone by their preferred pronouns is such a red line issue, isn't it? For some people, not doing this every time you are asked to do it without caveat is workplace harassment. For some people (including me) being obligated to use pronouns that reflect a belief in a philosophy you think is untrue and harmful is equally workplace harassment.

I don't think this can be reconciled.

I suspect @TheClitterati that IO strategy is to goad AB into saying something objectionable - they can then more easily make the case that she was excluded not because of her GC beliefs but because she was difficult to work with and unreasonable

@nauticant wouldn't that all be in the skelton? - Perhaps it confuses things for the witness to stray from simple statements of what they believe(d) or facts