Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 18

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April, witness testimony concluded on the 26th May. Closing arguments for council was on the 20th June.

There was 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 )
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 = Judge Goodman, Mr M. Reuby and Ms Darmas

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

Thread 5 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4548160-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-5

Thread 6 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4550451-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-6

Thread 7 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4551757-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-7

Thread 8 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552521-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-8

Thread 9 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553181-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-9

Thread 10 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553754-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-10

Thread 11 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4555145-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-11

Thread 12 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4555687-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-12

Thread 13 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556235-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-13

Thread 14 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556407-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-14

Thread 15 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556803-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-15

Thread 16 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4557036-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-16

Thread 17 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4561850-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-17

Allison Bailey - claimant (4-9, 11-13 May)

Witnesses for the claimant:

Dr Nicola Williams - Fair Play for Women (29 April)
Dr Judith Green - A Woman's Place (29 April)
Kate Barker - LGB Alliance (3 May)
Lisa-Marie Taylor - FiLiA (4 May)

Witnesses for the respondents:

Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC (3-4 May)
Zainab Al-Farabi - ex Stonewall (10 May)
Kirrin Medcalf - head of trans inclusion Stonewall (10 May)
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC (13 May)
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall (16 May)
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG (16 May)
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers (16-17 May)
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC (17-18 May)
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC (18 May)
Judy Khan - barrister at GCC (19-20 May)
Charlie Tennent - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Luke Harvey - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Louise Hooper - Barrister at GCC (20 May)
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, 25 May)
Marc Willers - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Stephen Clark - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Liz Davies - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Cathryn McGahey - Bar Council Ethics Committee's VC (24 May)
Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)
Colin Cook - Head clerk at GCC (24 May)
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing (25 May)
Kathryn Cronin - barrister at GCC (25 May)
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge (26 May)
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers (26 May)
Closing arguments for AB, GCC, and SW (20 June)

Allison Bailey's

Witness Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Witness-Statement-of-Allison-Bailey.pdf

Supplementary Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/C-Supplementary-Witness-Statement.pdf

Closing Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CLOSING-SUBMISSIONS-FINAL.pdf

Ah, the usual TRAs are putting their spin of "you lost, you lost, Stonewall won" already. Failing to mention that her employer lost, massively, because they followed Stonewall's advice Idiots.

Oh please let GCC sue Stonewall to pay Allison's damages for giving them shoddy advice though, that would be amazing

Well done Allison, congratulations! So sorry you had to go through this.

Does anyone know if GCC can appeal? I do hope they sue Stonewall.

That Stonewall statement 'above and beyond the legal minimum'....!

@Cherryblossoms85 check out the Xenopronouns, you can put any old shite. But I think your employer would be breaking the law to force you to go along with GI beliefs.

And even when their job is to manage social media as part of the portfolio…Looking at you, David de Menezes.

Ha ha absolutely.

Well done, Allison! Fantastic result.

Does "aggravated damages" mean "we're giving Allison a fuckload of cash"? Hope so!

Fucking brilliant.

I hope that the maggots do not appeal.

Apparently the judgement is already out.

Apologies to actual maggots.

Huge "it wasn't me/nothing to see here " vibes from Stonewall's statement.
What a week they've had. Absolutely not suggesting there are trans toddlers and absolutely not giving shit legal advice

Loving paras 19-20 dissing on the infamous bundle!

Leaders within organisations are responsible for the organisational culture and the behaviour of their employees and workers. Stonewall’s resources, support and guidance is just one set of inputs they use to help them as they consider how best to meet the needs of their own organisation

Surprisingly, I agree with Stonewall here.

They do indeed offer one set of inputs, elaborating one way of seeing the world, and in support of one set of people.

Many more inputs are also available and companies should consider how much weight they give Stonewall’s input versus, say, input from the EHRC, womens groups, or common bloody sense such as that everyone knows that two year olds don’t express sincerely held gender identities.

Serious organisations will be taking note, and adjusting accordingly. Stonewall may not like how that turns out.

Says about £27k in the first bit of the judgment but that's just for damage to feelings. Not sure if anything for loss of income.

"13. Unusually for an employment tribunal, members of the public and journalists observed the remote hearing in large numbers. At times there were up to 250. Many helpfully cooperated with each other, by repasting links to hearing materials for latecomers, and advising each other on technical difficulties, such as opening the online bundles. Otherwise observers were asked to email the clerk if they had a request or complaint, and not to use the chat room. A few were ill-disciplined, using the chat room to comment on the proceedings, and on one occasion to insult counsel; they were disconnected.

14. There was trouble with a few observer screen names: the tribunal did not allow names that were (In particular context) obvious harassment of a witness or counsel. Offenders were invited to log back in with a neutral name and then disconnected. The tribunal did permit screen names that indicated affiliation to one side or other in the sex/gender debate, despite several observer complaints about this, as they were deemed cultural markers (such as a lapel badge or item of clothing) which would be unobjectionable in a tribunal room or public gallery. The tribunal overlooked frivolous names if, as far as we could see, they did not harass any individual."

I am absolutely delighted that Allison won something, and all the sunlight she has brought pouring in will make it so much easier for women following behind, and will hopefully give HR departments pause for thought.

However it is clear that the only point she won on was GCC’s handling of the investigation, which was the strongest part of the claim. The ET found she hadn’t demonstrated loss of earnings, and of course SW can spin their involvement as a win for them. So I’m relieved for her that it’s over and I am genuinely glad she gets some justice from GCC, it’s not the wallop over the head SW deserved, nor will the damages comprise loss of earnings as she didn’t win that part of the claim.

Nonetheless, brava Allison for having the ovaries to take this on.

Jesus christ @Cherryblossoms85 . Who the fuck do you work for. Take this to HR toot sweet. That is hugely discriminatory.

These comments?

@TheBestBitch I was just going to say that I love para 16!

Back to reading the judgement...

Well done Allison, you brave, brave woman!

The judgement being out today explains all the reverse ferreting Bonerwall have been sperging all over Twitter yesterday. They probably expected to be found against, as they should have been. I hope GCC sues them for bad advice.

I suppose I can probably see how there was no finding against Stonewall. Stonewall is a very, very, far-out there advocacy group, with very, very extreme views. it doesn't pretend otherwise. but this isn't illegal. GCC needed to be brave and sensible enough to take Stonewall's advice selectively.

Ooooh I am so pleased for her & utterly unshocked ti see stonewall skip away with ‘a nuffink to do with us and our support animals’

i really hope organisations look at that and I understand that when the shit hits the fan, they are totally on their own

Allison may not have won against Stonewall in this case, however, the bright and blinding light shone on Stonewall's practices and those of the people they employ or empower to carry out those practices by this Court case and the subsequent increased awareness by the public of what Stonewall is now is a win.

Preliminary judgement accidentallly misgenders Shaan Knan

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Bailey-judgment.pdf

Ooops.

Yes, it's a salutary reminder to organisations that they follow the legal advice of partisan lobbyists entirely at their own risk. The value and accuracy of that advice may vary, especially if an organisation is pushing one particular ideology rather than offering balanced and objective information.

i really hope organisations look at that and I understand that when the shit hits the fan, they are totally on their own

They'd be dumb as rocks not to.

This is an enormous blow to Stonewall's corporate influence. Thank fuck.

Stonewall: ‘If everything we did to encourage workplaces to mistreat GC people actually led to mistreatment, then that’s nothing to do with us’

😂