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

true that - Stonewall themselves have posted this - would have been nice to see this reflected in press headlines:

We are pleased that the Employment Tribunal has ruled in a decision published today that Stonewall has NOT been found to have instructed, caused or induced Garden Court Chambers to discriminate against Allison Bailey.

Our Diversity Champions programme supports employers to make their workplaces inclusive and supportive of LGBTQ+ employees. It provides resources, guidance and support for organisations who are committed to creating a workplace where everyone can thrive. We are incredibly proud of the inclusive communities these organisations are creating across the country, by going above and beyond the legal minimum to provide leading support for LGBTQ+ people at work.

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.

We are proud to work every day for the freedom, equity and potential of every LGBTQ+ person, whether that’s fighting for LGBTQ+ Afghans to be resettled in the UK, campaigning so that lesbian and bi women can access IVF without paying £25,000 out of their own pockets, or securing a ban on conversion practices that protect all LGBTQ+ people from lifelong harm.

Stonewall “won” because it didn’t seem like the Chambers paid them much mind.

however, they did attempt to influence GCC to acts of illegal discrimination (the email sent by their employee KM, which they’ve accepted responsibility for.)

They “won” because they weren’t any good at the attempted influencing.

...which she lost.

Most women I know have other problems that this whole hearing does not even begin to address.

That's very true. There's Sarah Summers for a start. Who knew that you can't get a women-only rape crisis group any more? I'm even more worried about that than I am about these employment cases.

Still, one baby step at a time.

Catherine, I understand why you and the likes of OJ want to minimise the significance of these findings, but simply because AB's complaint's against Stonewall was not upheld does not make this a win for them.

The judgement makes clear that Stonewall provided advice to a scheme member that contributed to CCG discriminating against AB and encouraged an organisational culture where it's was deemed appropriate to do so and overuse the legal protections of the Equality Act.

That fact has resulted in the reputation of GCC being damaged and in addition to the £22k award to AB they will have incurred significant costs (hundreds of thousands) in legal fees.

The fact Stonewall has walked away from this mess in a legal sense doesn't mean it's walked away unscathed.

Any scheme member should be questioning why they are paying money to an organisation that risks causing them reputational loss and the possibility of expensive court action by encouraging a culture that overrides good (and legal) HR practice - especially when that organisation has now been proven to have no skin in the game and post tribunal is prepared to throw your organisation under a bus by saying effectively "you didn't have to do what we told you to do".

I'm so pleased she won - well done Allison!

I genuinely wasn't sure she would due to the fact that she is self employed and so much of her evidence was subjective. I'm still wading my way through the full judgement but it doesn't read well so far for either GCC or SW.

To those saying Stonewall have won I would like to ask - what have they won? Okay, they haven't lost but they have spent a fortune defending the case; washed some very dirty linen in public, some of their witnesses have been ridiculed in the press, and have still had to put out a statement saying that companies shouldn't follow their advice but use their own judgement. What is the point of their Diversity Champions scheme if not to give advice on the subject of EDI?

Their reputation and credibility has taken [yet another] huge hit. Why would any company bother being part of this scheme now? I suspect it will be wound up and reinvented in a new costume at a later date.

The point of this ET was never to recoup the cost of bringing the action. That wouldn't have been possible with the costs/damages structure of ETs. The point is to get the judgement itself. This has been a achieved.

Thank you Allison

I've read the judgment and as far as I can make out all Allison won was £22k for some tweets that caused "injury to feelings".
Is this correct?

Yes this is correct.

Just to be clear then - when you said

"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?"

you accept no-one has said the words "it was Stonewall or Stonewall policy or Stonewall training that made the Chambers send those three tweets" and yet you are asking someone to show you that the judgement said this?

You know this is described as a 'straw man' argument, right? You change the words of what is being argued so that you can say they are incorrect. You changed it to specify 'three tweets'. If you actually want good-faith debate, have the courtesy to use the words others have taken the care to use, and don't pretend people have said something different.

That post was clearly in the context of the hundreds of posts so far in this thread, of which many have said that employers are now going to be more aware of the legal risk of implementing Stonewall policies unquestioningly. Your sloppy NRTFT is making you either misunderstand or pretend to misunderstand.

Hi trans activists, you can scuttle around pretending this is super great for Stonewall, but it's not you we are trying to convince.

This is a warning to all the organisations out there, listen to Stonewall crap and you'll need more than an emotional support pet.

🐕😘💅

We all saw Kirrin Medcalfe's email, right?

I mean, it was quite clear that Stonewall wanted to influence GCC and weren't prepared to leave Allison alone on the basis that she was entitled to her views. So they were giving unhelpful advice.

That GCC apparently didn't act on anything Stonewall suggested, but decided to discriminate anyway doesn't exonerate Stonewall from accusations that they were misinterpreting the Equality Act.

How good does it look that membership of the DC scheme involved sharing logos and absolutely nothing else? What organisation needs to spend money for that? Why would you bother?

Why would anyone in their right mind say that Allison receiving aggravated damages was a loss?

Or that blowing open the totally irrational woke craziness of several barristers and QCs for the world to see was a loss? It set the legal world reeling.

Or that exposing Kirrin Medcalfe (and assistance team) and Shaan Knaan for the world to see that the shining luminaries of Stonewall are actually pathetic inadequates with, in Kirrin's case anyway, an extraordinary level of entitlement.

Or that the very clear of the EJ Stout warning that any organisation that bases its internal policies on Stonewall guidance can expect major problems is a loss?

HR departments will start checking their policies and cutting out any advice they've taken for Stonewall. Lots of companies will quietly hand in their Diversity Champions badges with a sigh of relief for having a reason to get out of the racket.

And of course it'll get Allison and GC ideas yet another round of publicity and get anyone who isn't already GC thinking a bit harder. It's a win for the vipers.

Freedom of speech = priceless

Ms Bailey did not lose her case. If she had she would not have been awarded any damages. The point here is that organisations involved with Stonewall today have learned that Stonewall's position in relation to the Equality Act is unlawful and that Stonewall is able to walk away and leave organisations with which it has a relationship to carry the can.

What this tells organisations is that they should be very, very wary of anything Stonewall says since all liability rests with them. Organisations have learned today that they must take such liability much, much more seriously if they wish to remain on the right side of the law.

This was part of the purpose behind Ms Bailey's claim "I am suing Stonewall". The intent, which was successfully achieved, was to expose the precariousness of organisations that have any relationship with Stonewall. Organisations will be carefully considering their positions today.

My own question still stands. If this topic is not important enough to justify our discussing it, why is it important enough for you try to shut us down? Why not just let us waste our time if it doesn't matter?

lifeissweet you mean the one "I trust you'll do the right thing"? (Was that KM?)
Obviously no-one can find anything wrong with that - surely the 'right thing' is always the right thing to do - by definition?

Lol at the ppl coming here to tell us that stonewall witnesses appeared with whole support entourages including their mum & that they really didn’t have influence anyway so whatevs (in which case why is anyone paying them several thousands of pounds) is a win 😆😆😆

I look forward to more Government departments boasting BEIS-style that they are a Stonewall free zone. This case will have helped shift debate from "why aren't you a Stonewall champion" to "why are you a Stonewall champion".

I am so sick of feeling excluded from shops I would normally use (Waitrose, M&S etc) because of their virtue signaling of values I don't share. However it has saved me a ton of money, which I have used to help gardening projects. A good redistribution.

any organisation taking advice from stonewall and its range of support animals deserves everything it gets

That's exactly the point: Stonewall did not "risk" GCC anything. They were specifically exonerated on the point of having influenced GCC's reaction to AB's tweets. As hard as you are trying to pin all this on Stonewall: AB fully lost in regards to all Stonewall related claims.

The judgement says “It was clear from evidence that Kirrin Medcalf was alive to Stonewall’s soft power” (para 373) but agrees that “reaction to an attack on Stonewall, seen as an ally, was to consider whether there were any grounds for finding the claimant in the wrong, and reaching for BSB social media guidance as the only candidate. That was Stephanie Harrison’s response…” (para. 376)

In other words, the claimant didn’t prove that the use of Stonewall’s soft power amounted to instructing Garden Court to take action against one of its barristers. The court agreed with Allison that it was indeed a possible reading, but disagreed that Kirrin definitely meant it - there’s a rather dry, “It is obscure what he wanted to achieve or Garden Court to do.” (Para. 368). The burden of proof is on the claimant; there was enough doubt to dismiss the claim.

I wouldn’t say Stonewall won. They didn’t lose. However, they don’t exactly come out of this covered in glory.

Paragraphs 59 and 60 covering the split between Stonewall and the LGBA are also worth a read.

Just wanted to point out some points you seem to have misinterpreted. But I'll leave you to it... Allison Bailey lost in all her claims against Stonewall. She set out and fundraised to sue Stonewall. She did. She lost.

Have a good evening trying to spin that into "we got value for money"

AB fully lost in regards to all Stonewall related claims.

But won against her employer, who got utterly shafted.

Now if I were an employer, how would that impact my relationship with Stonewall? 🤔

And the cost of those expensive lawyers giving evidence at the tribunal also must have been £’000s in lost fee time.

I just looked back to what I wrote this morning. I should have put a bet on it

Can we play who's going to be next to leave the diversity champions scheme please?

KPMG needing some positive publicity right now

All the NHS organisations, police services and fire & rescue services need to get on with their day jobs and I bet a few of those LLP firms are looking at GC thinking thank fuck it wasn't us.