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?

Ah ha! At least I now know why they were so reluctant to mute everybody! Because they then have to individually unmute the people who are supposed to be speaking!

That hadn't crossed my mind!

I'm confused again.

IO arguing that SW didn't know about Allison's email to her chambers...wasn't that what MB's email was about? Where she says ''great, now Allison's wholly unfounded allegations are going to be aired with Ruth Hunt-nothing like washing our dirty, transphobic laundry in public''.

Someone told Ruth Hunt about Allison's objections to Stonewall? So they did know?

I don't think IO is doing that badly. She has managed to cast some doubt on AB's ability to prove that GCC's actions were substantially directed by Stonewall as a corporate entity. I still think they were influenced by Stonewall, and I still think they used a veiled threat, but the judge might not.

What is the burden of proof needed here?
Is it 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'on the balance of probabilities' or something else?

People forget to carry on with the pretence that a bloke is not a bloke. Or that a woman is not a woman.

I think it's balance of probabilities in discrimination cases.

Thanks

Yes, and I think that AB has been over-adamant in her position on Stonewall instructing GCC and I'm not sure she has been persuasive enough.

This is not about knowing that Stonewall has done bad things in general but in terms of proving AB's case to the satisfaction of the tribunal.

I suspect that IO has been quite canny in making AB be so over adamant.

You might be right, nauticant. It's a difficult balance. You have to be adamant without sounding unreasonably entrenched (even though you are - obviously - entrenched, or you wouldn't be in a tribunal).

I think we see this where AB is asked whether it's possible to hold GC beliefs and not hold AB's views about Stonewall.

AB says no, and I think she's almost right, but it's not right (IMO) to say it's impossible. Some people might think sex is immutable and binary, and that there is no such thing as an innate gender, but not give a monkey's about Stonewall's position one way or the other.

IO can't believe it's been an hour. I can.

I'm thinking of setting this as my wake-up alarm for the next few weeks tabbycatstripy:

AB says no, and I think she's almost right, but it's not right (IMO) to say it's impossible. Some people might think sex is immutable and binary, and that there is no such thing as an innate gender, but not give a monkey's about Stonewall's position one way or the other.

I think you're right - possibly it's true that logically it follows from the GC view that Stonewall is [whatever the views are, specifically, don't want to misquote her] - but that doesn't mean that it is impossible to believe GC views without sharing that position, because people might not have thought about it, might interpret the evidence differently, etc. It's like saying, "you cannot be an atheist without thinking evangelical all-sinners-are-going-to-hell Christianity is absolutist and abhorrent" - it's arguable...

Now IO is going too far by trying to suggest KM was 'an individual who worked for Stonewall' rather than their head of a policy area speaking for the organisation. He clearly was.

I think we see this where AB is asked whether it's possible to hold GC beliefs and not hold AB's views about Stonewall.

AB says no, and I think she's almost right, but it's not right (IMO) to say it's impossible. Some people might think sex is immutable and binary, and that there is no such thing as an innate gender, but not give a monkey's about Stonewall's position one way or the other.

Exactly, this comes down to whether a feminist definition of gender critical is used ie critical of the whole edifice of "gender" as sex stereotyping, or if "gender critical" is taken as they seem to think as "not believing in gender identity ideology".

And she acknowledged that in her verbal slip there.

Overall both IO and AB scored points over the course of the day but AB's points are worth little while IO's could be worth a great deal to Stonewall.

No tribunal sitting tomorrow, proceedings resume at 10am on Monday.

Gosh, IO estimated that her cross-examination of AB would take half a day (and it took a day and a half) while AH estimated that his cross-examination would take 3 days, and is now saying at least 2. So that could be 4 days or more.

Adjourned until 10am on Monday.

It was a mixed picture for me. The KM email is the most persuasive thing if it comes to Stonewall's corporate intent to make AB suffer a detriment. The meeting held at GCC where the message was passed to people affiliated with Stonewall that they were encouraged to make complaints is more damning for GCC members, but whether that is enough to make GCC culpable as a whole (rather than attributable to a few individuals and nothing to do with the way GCC treated her) I don't know.

The tribunal have decided not to provide a full timetable of witnesses and will only announce them the day before. This was done to limit to possibility of harassment of witnesses.

Suggesting KM wasn't speaking for Stonewall is obvious rubbish. If that were true nobody would ever be speaking for their employer.

I think the case against Garden Court Chambers looks easier to prove than the case against Stonewall, but we shall see. I was just imagining if I was the witness and not someone with Allison's expertise in law. I would have fallen at the first hurdle I think Employment tribunals really are horrendous things to put yourself through. Admire anyone with the tenacity to do so.

I don't see how they can argue that a SW employee (SW Head of Trans Inclusion no less), in contact with a contracted SWDC member, making a complaint about a member of that client's organisation, wasn't speaking for SW. It makes no sense to claim this was just some random offended person.

You mean from this?
IO: Your protected acts. One thing you rely on is this email - nobody at SW was aware of this email from you to GC until it was disclosed in these proceedings.

AB: I don't know

Yes I'm confused too.

From Allison's witness statement:

"Nerida Harford-Bell, a senior barrister within the crime team at Garden Court,
replied all to my email of 14 December 2018 and said she was meeting with
the Chair of Stonewall Ruth Hunt and would raise my concerns with her.
Michelle Brewer commented on this in an email to Stephen Lue (Bundle
Page 986). She wrote “great now Allison's wholly unfounded allegations are
going to be aired with Ruth – nothing like washing our dirty transphobic
laundry in public.” I did not see this email until my Subject Access Request
response was received (and the names of Ms Brewer and Mr Lue were
redacted until I received disclosure in these proceedings)"

Unless 'this email' is referring to a different one.