Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 3

[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

On the first page underneath where you put your screen name, select the video and mic that are not crossed out (top option), 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)

Thread 1
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Thread 2

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542466-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-2

Just imagining any work situation where I'd get my Mam in with me. Cant think of one ..

Maybe it doesn't take a lot to be given a big juicy job title at this patently amateur organisation 🤷🏻‍♀️

But I don't think that argument is reasonable, since in his statement he says he was acting out of concern for his staff, which means he was acting 'as an agent of Stonewall' whichever way you look at it.

I'm capable enough to have a professional job and several degrees.

I also have a disability.

ah. thank you. (but still!)

Kirrin says:

I’ve been competing in dog agility since I was 11. With my life savings (not very much when you’re a pre-teen) I bought my dog Holly, a Sheltie, and we learnt the sport together. Holly was a twice-rejected show dog and hearing dog. Third time lucky we found each other and found a sport we loved doing. We won the under 18s agility competition at Crufts, and I later reached championship level with Pixie, my sister’s dog.

Perhaps their dog is going to do a trick?

Is there any evidence that SW policed any men in the way they policed AB and Lucy Masoud? Because if not they begin to look a bit misogynist.

Jules I'm not following on live. I was just somewhat assuming that someone in that role wouldn't have their mum with them at work, so why for this? I know some disabled people have PAs but unless Mum is the PA then having your Mum with you seems unusual.

I don't disagree that this is bizarre and BC asked for a case management hearing to find out what the issue is for which reasonable adjustments have been sought and that was denied (it would have been private anyway). But clearly he has a need for which this is thought necessary and has been accepted as such.

As the judge said, in a tribunal in person anyone could be present to support witnesses but they would be visible by everyone so they could see if any communication was being made.

Snap, first thing that popped into my mind. A large cast .. and their dog!

MI5. GCHQ. Army, Navy, RAF. All being educated by Kirrin and his/ they's pals. I know people currently involved in pushing back at the MoD who are being met with very strong counterfire and threats.

I once had to present a research debrief to the Nestlé cat food team, in Switzerland. One of the team members present in the room was a dog. It was pretty unnerving!

Hope this breaks soon for lunch, I have errands to run.

I agree Jules I think it's good people can have someone there as a presence to take notes, be objective etc. Obviously not 'help' them in what they are saying. I am terrible under the spotlight, although tbh I think having a family/friend there would make me more self-conscious (personally).

But clearly he has a need for which this is thought necessary and has been accepted as such.

I'm not sure it's been fully considered as to whether these adjustments are in fact reasonable, and it wasn't made aware to the judge and BC until right before Medcalf was giving evidence. As she said, she just wants to get on with the tribunal rather than discuss it. So not sure we can say how necessary it is or isn't.

Breaking till 2pm.

Someone bringing a dog to a meeting about cat food. The nerve.

Are there any consequences for the Stonewall lot for what seems like deliberately non-cooperative behaviour? Not just this farce with the previously non-discussed Mum of the Head of Trans Inclusion, it's the non-disclosure and then mislabelled bundles, the interruptions, the requesting a break as soon as the break is over, it just seems to be a pattern of unhelpfulness and disruptiveness. Even if there are no serious consequences that can result why are they risking annoying the EJ?

I agree that's it's unfair on other witnesses for KM requested adjustments (which were withheld from the tribunal until his evidence was in progress, and which they had no intention of actually declaring) to be allowed without discussion. How can they be reasonable when no-one knows the reasons?

But providing we can actually see everyone in the room (and I'm not entirely convinced even now that they are telling the truth about who is there) it shouldn't cause too much of a problem.

The judge has accepted it because in an in person tribunal they could all be there whether he has a need under Eq A or not. Except perhaps the dog!

So she felt it wasn't necessary to have a private hearing to find out what the need is as no-one is requesting reasonable adjustments in the cross examination except regular breaks, which is happening anyway.

But I strongly suspect there is an Eq A characteristic that requires this anyway.

I would never take my mum to work but only because I would be a laughing stock. Not because I don't have additional support needs.

HAHA actual guffaws here, with the subsequent unmasking of the doggie

Did the dog identify as a cat?

BC: Redacted bits include parts which say GC has always been ally to SW and trans. In order for GC to continue association I trust you will do what is right.

Well, well, well..

I didn't have to do any catsplaining, fortunately

If AB loses, does she have to pay the other sides' costs?
If so, would the Judge be able to reduce these due to costs being bumped up by their delaying tactics?
e.g. it should have lasted 5 days, you made it last 6 so she only has to pay 5/6ths costs?