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

Ah, SSS says 'I said power'

JR clearly has an extensive Hobbes wardrobe.

'Of course SW seek to influence'

’The DCs hold the power in that relationship...’

He’s probably not entirely wrong on the face of things. Every DC could tell them to fuck off today, and should.

Well that in itself is an absurd proposition.

BC: 'the desire and purpose of the DC scheme is to give SW influence'

Talking about how SW exerts influence .. it's the Ponzi scheme being described.

Opp to inflict reputational harm by demoting? BC

SSS disagrees

Benefits that SW offer: use of SW logo etc

the reason for that is is that SW recognise orgs seek to burnish their reps through this association- BC

SSS - yes. Logo shows orgs working towards equal workplace

Is there a bundle link bar LT statement? Got in late.

Discussion about SW's Index and toolkits now

BC just cleverly corrected himself to draw attention to the difference between gender identity and gender reassignment. He is a smart man.

Now listing problems such as misgendering, forbidding trans people accessing spaces they wish to use and describes the latter as 'harassment'

SW promotes the idea that transpeople should in all instances be granted access to facilities with which they identify

this is comm'd to Diversity Champions and to dissent from those positions is inherently transphobic

SSS not framed like that, all about positive framing

not adopting this approach means orgs wouldn't make it onto WEI? BC

SSS - no one individual criteria that would stop that

BC - if an org didn't adop the 'above and beyond law' approach of using gender identity they wouldn't make it onto the index

So he accepts that organisations improve their reputation by joining the scheme or going up the index, but doesn't accept the flip side. That their reputation can be reduced/damaged by going down thd index or withdrawing from thd scheme.

The problem they have here is that the programme is entirely voluntary. No organisation has to adopt these idiotic definitions and I think the ‘reputational harm’ from withdrawing from the DC champions programme is non-existent. That doesn’t mean Stonewall doesn’t exercise influence, it doesn’t mean they didn’t solicit GCC to disassociate themselves from AB, but there is a danger of overstating the case for ‘power’.

BC - SW exerts influence through this scheme - membership scheme isn't hermetically sealed off from comms team at SW - work in open plan office - memberships team members sat among other team members

SSS - there's a level of internal ... some consultation, yes

Is 'he went rogue and wasn't authorised to write on behalf if stonewall' any defence? He did write in their behalf and anyone receiving the letter would take it to be a stonewall complaint. That's stonewall's doing for not training or guiding their employee properly.

but doesn't accept the flip side. That their reputation can be reduced/damaged by going down thd index or withdrawing from thd scheme.

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-bbc-leaving-diversity-champions-programme

in relation to claimants, your team had been briefed - you'd offered support to GCC via account manager

SSS says you could go up in points if you don't do all the gender identity parts. But didn't those FOIs show that gender ID was woven throughout all of the scheme? Each entry/line. Including communications, procurement, employment policy?

I don't think that's entirely true. The Twitter pile ons and attempts to get free prom dresses etc means that there is a huge reputational risk by doing anything that upsets the lobby and Stonewall are part of the lobby.

SSS say briefing/discussion of individuals isn't commonplace

BC - this is unusual?

now discussion of terms used - consultation/update/engagement

discussing I presume whether discussion of AB's individual case was 'standard practise'

He keeps repeating that SW exists to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ people in the workplace and each time he says it I think of Allison and wonder what SW did to support her.

BC - you're telling us to be briefed by comms team and offer of support to GC was unusual?

SSS - email not centred around individual, but around an org, with ref to individual