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

In the Speccie:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bravery-of-allison-bailey

"This is the second such court ruling relating to gender critical views this month. Earlier in July, a tribunal confirmed that Maya Forstater, a think-tank researcher, also suffered discrimination because of her gender critical beliefs. An earlier element on Forstater’s case led to the ground-breaking ruling that such beliefs are 'protected' under the Equality Act 2010.

These cases are a big deal. Their implications for employers may be significant. They should also have significant consequences for wider public discourse around sex and gender."

And:

"work at Westminster and so deal regularly with politicians, officials, journalists and other prominent and influential people. Over several years, I grew accustomed to such people quietly taking me aside to say things to the effect of 'I am worried about sex and gender issues, but I am afraid to say so openly.'

Some of those people were members of parliament, some of cabinet and shadow cabinet rank. Others were prominent journalists with large public platforms. Over time, that fear has ebbed. Some, but far from all, of the people who have private concerns here are now willing to speak openly."

My favourite:

"But Allison Bailey is brave. So is Maya Forstater. Everyone is better off for their bravery. I hope those who remained silent while those women fought on will now find their own voices."

We are all better off for their bravery. There should be no ideology that frightens our elected representatives, or the fourth estate such that they stay silent. This has to change, for the good of democracy (MPs, councillors) and for the purposes of holding to account (the press).

This judgement affects my Dds who are entering the workplace more than me - thank you Allison from all of us x

this...

I've not read the judgement in full, but it seems that AB lost most of her claims, all that went against Stonewall (which is why #StonewallWins is trending) and she also didn't get any "lost earnings" which she had claimed as far as I recall. So over half a million pound got her about 25k for hurt feelings. How is that a win?

An important victory and a happy day. Thanking God for Alison Bailey's determination and courage...

I mean to add my comment to the post that reminded us that AB fundraised explicitly to sue Stonewall.

Have costs been awarded to Alison?

Are GCC going to have to stump up half a million quid to fund their own spanking?

please say yes

Very pleased with the result though just wish AB had been able to make out a better case to justify higher damages.
Disillusioned with SW which has just turned out to be part of the patriarchal hegemony.
Much too old to do any campaigning now and sad to see what an environment my young granddaughter is inheriting. For a time there we had such high hopes!
Am hoping that reincarnation exists so I can come back and have another go at reform

CatherinaJTV

You never disappoint.

Do you not know any women in real life or understand how angry women are, or why.

The court decided that her employer had broken the law. This should discourage other employers from breaking the law. Plenty good enough for me.

‘So over half a million pound got her about 25k for hurt feelings. How is that a win?’

Well... Firstly, she doesn’t pay those costs, we do. So she is compensated. Secondly, she doesn’t pay GCC costs either. Their discriminatory behaviour has cost them very dearly, and that’s what we wanted.

I may be wrong but I didn’t think she had to pay their costs.

It is a win for those who think employers should consider carefully before outsourcing EDI training to an organisation whose advice has proved to be erroneous and therefore costly.

It is a win for those who would like people to engage their brain and actually read the Equality Act before assuming that Stonewall must be right about everything.

I love the babies saying she raised £500k and only got £22k back.
Darlings, as you are soon to find out when Stonewall comes asking for your pennies, it costs money to go to court. That's what the £500k was for.

She won on the important points anyway. If they had fired her she would have won there as well (they just happened not to). The belief discrimination is the crucial, portable point.

Information about the awarding of damages by an Employment Tribunal in England

Employment tribunals - discrimination - calculating compensation for injury to feelings

Oh ffs. The purpose of the case was never to get a load of profit. The fact that awarded damages are often small in comparison to costs is one reason why most people don't take such cases to court or tribunal. The amount of damages won against costs isn't an indication that the case wasn't significant (though the fact that she received "aggravated damages" is).

The purpose was to shine an enormous public light on policies, procedures and tactics that have got this far because they operated in the dark and usually on the coat tails of gay rights campaigns, which are far more popular and justifiable, not least because they don't clash with the rights of straight people. Gay marriage takes nothing from straight people. Reducing "woman" to a feeling, rather than the fixed biological reality that is the source of oppression, takes a lot away from women.

I'm disappointed that AB didn't win the case against Stonewall although from what I've read so far, I can follow the logic; it's not illegal to go to an organisation to complain if you think an employee has behaved inappropriately. But it still definitely says something when following Stonewall's advice and campaign against AB was found to constitute discrimination for a protected belief, aggravated at that.

If people coming to this thread now don't understand what's happened, there are plenty of documents to explain. The judgement sets it out pretty clearly. If there are questions after reading that, please feel free to specify!

Congratulations Allison, you hero ❤️

I'm very happy that I contributed towards this result. I'm sure most of us are. More barrel-scraping from the TRAs!

I consider my 'gardening fund' amount well used.

It's not about this one case. It's an expensive and slow process where there is a pushback against people and organisations that keep on playing GA2010 top trumps.

AB is allowed to have her views, and quite frankly the 'cotton ceiling' workshop that started this all off is vile, misogynistic and homophobic. Good on her for calling it out. You have to wonder at the morals of anyone (person or organisation) who thinks AB was wrong and deserved any of this.

Maybe Stonewall won, in a way. But lots of people are noticing what's going on with them now. And it was a bad week for them to 'win' with all the attention that garners - what with the 'research shows' tweet about trans-toddlers. Bit of an own goal IMO.

Stonewall or their training had nothing to do with the chamber's tweets afaik.

could you point me to the part of the judgement that states that it was Stonewall or Stonewall policy or Stonewall training that made the Chambers send those three tweets?

Did you not follow the case that closely then?

Is it that TRAs don’t like women to be (a) happy and (b) right?

They didn't "fire" her and her complaint regarding lost earnings (which was the closest to the "firing" notion) was NOT upheld.

♥️ Thank you so much Allison.