Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 5

[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 please choose a non inflammatory/offensive name, everyone can see it in the chat - This is a court room, please behave accordingly.

The court chat function is there for official court purposes, not for observers, please don't use it unless you have a technical issue.

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, senior counsel - barrister for SW
RW = Robin White junior counsel to SW - assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell junior counsel to GC - 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

Thread 3 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3

Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546945-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-4

GCC's website for DN says he "has a diagnosis of autism". Could be the vulnerability
www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/clerks-and-staff/david-neale

They weren't worried that Allison might resign then? She has had health problems and was being treated appallingly. Maybe they only worry about men resigning or being vulnerable (thinking back to the WTF report).

Again, I apologise for the weaponising of my disability.

My experience of life is that no-one actually makes all of these allowances to make our lives easier at work.

LT is leaning so heavily on "because he was a vulnerable employee".

When AB received death threats was she vulnerable and if so where was the corresponding amount of consideration?

I must say that this hearing and Maya's has made me think more carefully about emailing things at work.

Maybe i just have a guilty conscious!

This has been really annoying me with the repeated and weaselly-seeming emphasis on the unexplained "vulnerability."

BC is coming across very classy by contrast by never pressing that point and working around it - it almost seemed like the witness wanted him to push the issue.

tbh, it feels inappropriate to do this.

I'm unhappy it's been raised in this way to be used as part of LT's schtick of being so honourable and empathic that there are reasons that he can't explain actions for which he plainly valorises himself. It's creating a human shield by implication: so far, BC seems to have no intention of involving DN so it feels deeply gratuitous for LT to do this.

Up until this point, LT was personable.

LT is setting my teeth on edge. It's all backtracking from GCC.

You should always assume that absolutely anything in writing at work, including internal chat messages, can and will be read by others and anyone mentioned in that correspondence has the right to have access to see it.

Surely a black lesbian receiving death threats is the very definition of vulnerable?

I appreciate you may not have read the whole post, but I did say in the last line that I'd apply that to all three juniors. Obviously all 3 may well all have been inundating whoever physically prepared the bundles with emails to correct errors. But since you made the positive assertion that bundles are not for juniors at all, I am assuming you have quite enough experience to know how these things work.

From me upthread:

Initial impression is that the witness LT is being reasonably forthcoming. Let's see how this develops.

Initial impressions can deceive.

LT getting angry. BC doing his job.

It's giving me serious thoughts about general emails when I vaguely think that, "I don't agree but I can't see the value of getting involved with this" and don't participate.

Frankly, I wouldn't have enough hours in a day to be involved in all of these general emails. I'd have to have a default of: "I agree/disagree for reasons that I do not elaborate here, nor will I make contemporaneous notes of them."

When i did the FOI e-learning a couple of years ago, it was highlighted and it has made me circumspect ever since.

Mr Thomas is getting very annoyed. Quite stark the difference between him and Allison under cross examination

Now it's to protect the reception ists!

It's sensible to imagine any and every email/letter one writes being read out in court at some unspecified point in the future.

Less vulnerable than white Oxbridge educated males, I think you'll find!

I seem to be alone in this but I think LT is raising a very plausible interpretation of that 'safety' email albeit I'd have acted more rapidly had I been concerned about the safety of staff if they've faced prior threats to receptionists etc. (depending on context. E.g., I'd not be startled to learn that some clients in Criminal Law might be distressed and angry): whether this is sincere or not, it has legs as an argument for me.

Note to self: don't marry a barrister

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

Cardinal Richelieu … or was it Owen Jones?

That is a very weasly email.

I’ve been able to watch all morning on my iPhone but now just the black screen. Any ideas why?

This is so blinking annoying.

I am autistic. Employers routinely treat me like shit and make no allowances whatsoever.

And I'm to believe that this highly paid legal researcher is so vulnerable that his needs trump everyone else's. Think his biases are showing pretty well.