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

When the BBC withdrew, Stonewall issued a statement saying:

This news comes in the wake of organised attacks on workplace inclusion that extend far beyond the Diversity Champions programme. It is shocking that organisations are being pressured into rolling back support for LGBTQ+ employees.

Ultimately, it is LGBTQ+ people who suffer. Our research shows that LGBTQ+ people are often disadvantaged at work:

Attacks on organisations who support LGBTQ-inclusive workplaces form part of a wider onslaught on those supporting LGBTQ+ rights. Of course, for LGBTQ+ charities, there is nothing new about being attacked. Many of the arguments against trans people today are simply recycled homophobia from the 80s and 90s. We all remember being told gay people were predators and lesbians were a threat in single-sex spaces. That wasn’t true of lesbians, bi and gay people then, and it isn’t true of trans people now.

‘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.’

I think that’s correct but it’s difficult to allocate responsibility for that directly to Stonewall. I think they are indirectly responsible for the cultural moment in which we find ourselves, certainly, but it’s very hard to demonstrate that directly.

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.

That’s a good point. The evidence on Friday showed that Garden Court perceived that there was a huge reputational risk to them. Is there a smoking gun directly linking Stonewall to the orchestrated Twitter campaign against Allison?

Because SW definition of LGBTQ+ has little to do with sexuality and everything to do with acceptance of genderism.

But BC might be able to do it by using wider statements about women being ‘sexual racists’ and so on. We will have to see.

Is that necessary? They are the official, government funded charity and as such have a standing. The Twitter ransoms shouldn't hold so much sway but the behemoth of Stonewall does by its very nature as being embedded as part of the establishment in British society now.

Randoms not ransoms but my phone made a Freudian autocorrect there.

That’s a good point. The evidence on Friday showed that Garden Court perceived that there was a huge reputational risk to them. Is there a smoking gun directly linking Stonewall to the orchestrated Twitter campaign against Allison?

I don't think AB is going to succeed in an argument that GCC behaved as they did as a result of being directed to do so by SW.

law firms are usually limited liability partnerships and so the company is a separate legal entity.

Pretty sure a bunch of solicitors would have their behinds covered for just this eventuality.

Lucy Masoud evidence is doing some work here.

Discussions of indivduals described as 'problematic' and 'transphobic'

SSS - not my understanding nor a directive we'd have at SW - not standard practise

Woah. "transphobic hate preachers" written in an email.

Come on BC, make him unpack what "safety" means in these cases.

cat is on my keyboard ...more exmples of comms from SW

'we don't expect staff to interact with notorious transphobic hate preachers'

‘Is that necessary? They are the official, government funded charity and as such have a standing. The Twitter ransoms shouldn't hold so much sway but the behemoth of Stonewall does by its very nature as being embedded as part of the establishment in British society now.’

They have to show intent to get Stonewall on this, I think.

But BC is on this now looking at how SW did actually designate some of their DCs as ‘problematic’.

BC - you do get involved with orgs when individuals are what you describe as 'transphobics'

SSS - we aim to support orgs

BC's quoting of the emails/tweets contrasts nicely with SSS' very bland party-line statements

Lucy Masoud evidence is doing some work here.

Yes, BC was able to brush aside SSS's argument that it was all about a duty of care to ensure safety of Stonewall employees.

It led to SSS shifting his position to effectively that it might have been the practice (to denounce individual gender critical people to "clients") but wasn't the policy.

The Lucy masoud example also shows how its wrong to go above and beyond the law here because she was worried about fire stations (iirc). There's a clear conflict of rights when sleeping arrangements, showering and changing are concerned. Going above and beyond for one pc means encroaching on the rights of another.

BC doing the work of champions.

M&S' changing room policy -
SW supports orgs with media issues
BC - if those issues concern particular indivduals?
'support' means influence to get SWs wanted outcome
It is not 'absurd' to suggest SW's power and influence
SW can confer or deny reputational benefits

BC's argument that SW is able to exert power and influence over the DCs is looking reasonably solidy now.

Having done well on that point, that's the end of BC's cross-examination.

Talking about marks and sparks. M and S said to be "holding the line on making their changing rooms inclusive (mixed sex) and then weren't too worried about media coverage." Shows they were in talks with companies.

Stonewall had no idea that their scheme could confer reputational benefit...

I Spelt her name wrong, should be Masood if TT are correct.