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

Allison if you are reading I hope you are knee deep into a vat of champagne.

Anyone who thinks this is a win for Stonewall is delusional.

They've been found to have provided legally incorrect advice to a scheme member and encouraged them to discriminate against an employee.

Then they've not just cut and run but twisted the knife to their scheme member by laying the blame solely at their door - thus adding to the reputational damage.

Tbh I agree the buck stops with GCC but anyone in Stonewalls schemes surely needs to assess the risk of allowing an organisation that promotes a discriminatory culture in the workplace to have influence over their culture and working practices - because it's very clear that when it's time to pay the piper, Stonewall will not be putting their hand in their pocket.

In The Times. Seems to be no comment from GCC so far:

Barrister Alison Bailey wins discrimination case over gender critical views

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/de6fed9e-0da6-11ed-a4af-79eb4b98fc31?shareToken=fa91f8d26bf45862c496f65804a3c358

"In several heated exchanges during weeks of hearings, Bailey said that she was “thrown to the hate mob” by the chambers adding: “What I have never tried to do to anyone in chambers or elsewhere is to say that because you do not agree with me I am going to ruin your reputation and deprive you of your livelihood.

“That has been the stock in trade of the trans rights movement.”

She told the tribunal that Stonewall had “opened the floodgates” to males who were not covered under the Gender Recognition Act to use female-only spaces and claimed that a fellow barrister secretly recorded her conversations."

And:

"Stonewall said it was pleased with the ruling, adding that “the case heard by the employment tribunal did not accurately reflect our intentions and our influence on organisations. 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.”

Garden Court Chambers was contacted for comment."

They have released a statement. It's crap, though

#stonewallwins

Gosh, that judgement is absolutely cutting isn't it? Every sentence more acidic than the last. I suspect the tribunal had fun drafting that.

I contributed to the crowdfunder. Having seen some comments on Twitter, I would just like to say that even had Allison lost on all points I would still have been very happy that my money had been used to take this case. As she has won against her employer, I am very satisfied it was a good use of my money.

Anyone who thinks this is a win for Stonewall is delusional.

No one with a functioning brain does think that, but I guess they have to try and spin it.

They have, and it is

www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/employment-tribunal-decision-on-allison-bailey-claim-against-stonewall-and-garden-court-chambers

They will appeal.. .:(

Me too. Agree on all counts

EJ Goodman did not let us down.

"Saying TERF is just an acronym is just like saying P* is just an abbreviation of Pakistani" is a rebuttal I've been using against the "TERF is not a slur" argument for a while now, so I'm pleased to see the judge agrees.

They are reviewing the statement with a view to appeal - maybe they will take some good advice from the judgment and calm down and take a step back. Cooler heads might realise it’s not a good idea.

BBC have reported on it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62294030

Ditto @Iknowitisheresomewhere

Same. And I will do it again, and again and again.

I saw one comment that said the 500,000 could have paid for 19(?) Stonewall Account Managers who advise (badly as it turns out) on inclusion.

I thought, in that case ot was money very well spent 😅

If ‘she didn’t win’ as they're spinning it, what are they appealing? I’d have thought that a legal firm would know that you only put in an appeal if you’ve lost?

I can’t see that gcc have much of a case against stonewall to sue for damages here, there was no requirement to take their advice afaik.

i hope they don’t appeal, for Allison’s sake. She doesn’t need that strain. The aggravated damages awarded sounds like that part was crystal clear to the ET as well, would they really think it worth court costs and exposure if very unlikely to overturn it?

And I'm going to do a bit of payday gardening for the LGBAlliance defence against the case brought by Mermaids.
Same tactics being used - delay, use zillions of witnesses, ramp up costs and try to bully a smaller, lesser funded organisation into submission.

Doesn't look as if Allison can award herself a celebratory holiday yet.

"Mermaids has ensured that the hearing is much longer than we had hoped by submitting a very large volume of paperwork and by presenting three witnesses, forcing us to provide an effective rebuttal.
Given the extent of witness and documentary evidence we have been required to prepare, we have added Karon Monaghan QC and a junior barrister to our legal team.
The significantly longer hearing, and the need to add a QC, has increased our costs significantly and so we are forced to raise our crowdfunding target to £215,000.
This is a vast sum of money. But this case is existential to us, and to the rights of people with same-sex sexual orientation to organise in our own interests."

Owen Jones has retweeted a Twitter account called A Mere Solicitor that talks about the judgement.

Not only does that account attempt to pin the witness intimidation and disruptive behaviour of the chatroom participants on "GC" people, it also blames Allison's lawyers for the dismal state of the bundle!

So I have a question - wouldn't a real solicitor know that the side putting forward twenty different witnesses was primarily responsible for the evidence bundle?

Is that account just like the TRAs who always turn up here claiming to have a senior job in a field related to whatever topic is under discussion but never actually know anything about it?

Surely for the sake of £27k it would be pragmatic not to appeal. It will cost them much more than that in paying their own fees to attend as witnesses.

Particularly enjoyed this chain of responses to the judgment on twitter:
JKR: "Allison Bailey is a heroine to me and innumerable other feminists for refusing to abandon her beliefs and principles in the fact of intimidation and discrimination. Congratulations, @BluskyeAllison !"

Benjamin Cohen: "Would you also offer congratulations to Stonewall for successfully defending the case made against it?"

Kylie Jender: "Is your magazine congratulating a lesbian barrister for winning a well-founded discrimination case against her chambers?"

They wouldn't be doing it for money, they'd be doing it for recovering the damage to their reputation.

I am not convinced that account is from a real solicitor.