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

I just saw on Twitter the evidence of their own publication of advice for early years posted alongside their denial that they advise for early years.

Either the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing or even that it exists, and they're a shambles,

or they believe in alternative realities and just looking blankly at unwanted facts and evidence while telling you that they can't see anything.

Which also makes them a shambles.

And if you follow their advice your insurers are risking Big Payouts in damages. And that will end them, because the money risk is not something insurers put up with.

Well done Alison, huge glass raised to you

This

Allison Bailey is #1 trending on Twitter right now.

The sunlight is pouring in.

Women are winning.

That's twice it's now been acknowledged and recorded that 'ter' is a slur - the first time in Scottish court, and now this.*

It was also stated by the judge in Harry Miller's judicial review against the College of Policing. Not sure it made it into the official judgement, but the judge did state in court that the term is a slur.

Remember you cannot 'offshore' or subcontract responsibility. As in conventional Safety legislation.
It is up to a person or a company to chose the right advisers. This verdict gives the option for the company to sue it's adviser. The proceedings in this case are most of the evidence.

An extremely good result.

Now the task is 'How do we make best use of this?' Along with others. Is anyone collecting an archive of results?
It would be good if someone is already. It needs background knowledge from a while back.
A new thread?

Nice one Allison

the braveness to go through this 💪💪💪💪💪💪🌹

What worries me is the vast majority of organisations- schools, employees, councils etc will only see “Stonewall win” and carry on with their discriminatory behaviour forwards GC people. We will still have to keep fighting and it shouldn’t be like that!

It would be interesting to see what would happen if GCC were to sue SW. IANAL but I'm sure you can never sub-contract out legal risk or responsibility. So I imagine what would happen, is that the decision would say "GCC can't delegate their risk and they took this risk". That would then point to the robustness of SW's advice but probably not provide a finding on it.

I read that to 'Fairytale of New York' in my head. It very nearly scans.

I am delighted that Allison won - I was more than a bit nervous as the judgement seemed to come awfully quickly and was surprised to find myself a bit teary.

Huge congratulations to Allsion and team

This was their game plan: 'It wasn't us, Gov, it was the inexperienced young'un with the support dog.'

I doubt it was a plan, because it looks really bad for how Stonewall manage employees with disabilities.Employing someone with a social-communication disability to fire off unreviewed communications would hardly be good employment practice.

That would be like suing their church. Are we expecting them to have an epiphany that women's rights matter just as much as men's? Indeed, even that women are allowed to have any sort of self-determination that conflicts with the diktats of the 'church'.

Ha! That's a very early start on the grog.

The ONE day I got totally absorbed in something else!

Absolutely delighted for Allison, her team, and all of us.

Garden Court. Not surprised, still delighted. I think what we saw in evidence showed what an absolute shower they are, even when not distracted by Christmas, football, Mariah Carey, bins etc. Or rather not distracted by bins. Completely oblivious to bins in fact.

We knew the Stonewall case was thin but hugely important because by god it's shown that anyone following their 'guidance' will be left carrying the can when the cold light of day shines in.

Absolutely bloody brilliant. Drinks (DRINKS!) all round.

No - you want a wreath with "So sorry for your recent loss"

Great news. I am not a lawyer and wasn't following the proceedings closely so am puzzled by the Kirrin Medcalf stuff. As I understand it, KM was, possibly still is, employed as Head of Trans Inclusion. This was a salaried job at Stonewall. Decades ago when I worked in accountancy junior employees weren't allowed to sign letters or anything else that might bind the firm until we reached a certain level of seniority, and by that stage it was expected partners and managers would be experienced enough not to do or say anything dodgy. KM's job title sounds quite senior and I dimly remember mention of the salary, which was not peanuts. So why didn't KM's actions get treated as binding on Stonewall?

I think SW not being liable is a stark warning for employers. Whose arse is on the line if the advice you follow is wrong?

SW aren’t standing behind GCC’s approach now are they. If you follow a lobby group’s advice and it is wrong it’s your lookout not theirs.

That sounds like a case for a tribunal, Cherryblossom85. You have the right to hold a belief or none in your workplace and shouldn't suffer any detriment or discrimination as a result.

Try sex-matters.org

The bundle 'seemed to have been randomly thrown together', in actual judgment 😂😂😂

The ET ruled that believing and stating that "gender identity theory as proselytised by Stonewall is severely detrimental" to women, and to lesbians" is a protected belief.

i'd like to see stonewall's collaborators get away with suing a lesbian charity with that in the public domain!

Great, thanks.

I will seek these out and collate them, it's very useful to have this.

Wasn't RMW responsible for the bundle?

for them to sue stonewall they would need to show breach of contract or breach of a duty of care which stonewall owed to them. I cannot see a basis for either claim.
bottom line is this; if someone tries to influence the way you do business and you let them, it’s on you.

Those were the rumours, although we're still awaiting RMW's next appearance on this board, so we would ask to confirm either way

I wasn't able to follow the hearing at the time.

However, I am genuinely shocked that a chambers submitted such a shambolic bundle of evidence! Even if I had no interest in the outcome of this particular case and wanted to engage GCC on something completely different, why would I use them after that?

Here you go - twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1197533063963697156?lang=en-GB

Was a comment in court so isn't written in the judgment.