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

She won against her employer who discriminated against her. That is plenty for me. More than plenty.

I gave money. I'm glad I did. If you want to claim this hasn't damaged Stonewall, then knock yourself out. I think it was absolutely fatal, but time will tell...

Catherina, Stonewall will have lost a lot of credibility. Did you follow Kirrin Medcalfe's testimony. This is the person responsibly for trans equality guidance that organisations across the country pay for.

The ruling effectively says that HR departments need to be cautious before adopting Stonewall advice. Common sense suggests that Kirrin may not be the right person for the very powerful position they occupy.

I can’t image stonewall and GCC are friends anymore!!

Or Catherina, put it another way.

Do you believed that Stonewall's reputation was strengthened as a result of the court case?

Why?

From GCC statement:

"We are reviewing the judgment carefully with our legal team with a view to appeal." ENDS

Clearly their "legal team" isn't that great, they couldn't put an adequate bundle together and they've just been found guilty of discrimination. Against a black, lesbian woman, for holding a perfectly reasonable view, which is legally Worthy Of Respect In a Democratic Society.

I’m not aware that Stonewall got its costs reimbursed! I would say it didn’t win. But it’s reputation is sxxt. Who in their right mind would ask them for advice?

Well - think we should all be celebrating that everyone is genuinely happy with this outcome! TRAs AND people who believe sex is real and immutable.

This happens very rarely, so let's all agree it's a great outcome and stop finding things to make up or be "concerned" about.

Chocolate-covered ginger biscuits for all! And miniature flags for some.

I seem to remember before the tribunal there was talk along the lines of 'when it gets going, you'll be astonished' - & we were. Time & again the reaction was WHAAAAAT? or 'I can't believe what I just heard!'

That's good value for money.

But won against her employer, who got utterly shafted.

She won a tiny amount of money for some tweets that caused "injury to her feelings", but lost on her extensive claims of "lost work and income".

That is very much not "utterly shafted."

Guardian report is up:
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/27/law-chambers-discriminated-against-gender-critical-barrister-tribunal-rules

'The ruling effectively says that HR departments need to be cautious before adopting Stonewall advice. '

And doesn't this quite echo the sentiment in the Bell case? She may have lost in theory, but in actuality the ruling handed back responsibility to individual doctors and agencies, which seems to be leading to quite a comprehensive overhaul of exactly what these individual doctors are willing to do, because that was the limit of the law and the judicial review.

Employers in the future will not be able to say that they only did what they did because Stonewall told them it was correct, they will have to take the responsibility and liability themselves.

In future cases no-one will be forced to take on Stonewall as well as their employers, the blame will all be on the people who implemented Stonewall law to begin with. Especially now, knowing as everyone does that it was wrong.

How's that for value for money!?

@CatherinaJTV Do you not understand media / public relations?

The sole point of saying "I am suing Stonewall" was about directing attention to this case. Stonewall UK is a global brand name. (If Ms Bailey had said "I am suing my Chambers" or "I am suing Garden Court" do you think there would have been such widespread interest?)

The purpose of this case was to demonstrate the precarious position for any organisation that has a relationship with Stonewall UK simply because the position that Stonewall UK takes in relation to the Equality Act 2010 is largely unlawful.

The Tribunal agreed with Ms Bailey which is why it awarded damages to her, within the boundaries set for how much damages can be awarded.

All organisations that have a relationship with Stonewall UK today have learned that liability rests solely with them and not Stonewall UK. These organisations will, from today, need to be reviewing that relationship to ensure they can avoid a similar fate.

Ms Bailey's case achieved its purpose. Stonewall UK is now standing on very unstable ground.

There are so many good things about this case and Allison's success.

Well done to her and many thanks from here for her great courage in going ahead with it.

I am glad that in future employers will not be able to use Stonewall or other organisations to 'stamp' their policies as good ones. Accepting slogans (like those by Orwell's pigs: 'four legs good two legs bad') isn't enough.

Organisations will need to think for themselves and to listen to those the policies concern.

I am also glad that organisations (even ones with 'wrong' ideas) can still protest and put their point of view to employers (and other people). Yes -even Stonewall should have freedom to air its thoughts... It is just that they should not have the freedom to prevent anyone from questioning these thoughts. 'No debate' is a dangerous thing for free speech and free thought.

Ben Cohen - why are all the newspapers except Pink News getting it wrong?

twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1552325305532137474?s=20&t=kf9bfuE5crnZ2OJl69DwnA

She set out and fundraised to sue Stonewall

Yes, and Garden Court Chambers, her employer. Who were found to have discriminated against her for her gender critical beliefs, which as we all know from Maya's recent win and her appeal tribunal last year, are protected under the Equality Act like any other philosophical belief worthy of respect in a democratic society. She also brought an awful lot of negative attention to the Diversity Champions scheme racket. Do keep up.

As has been said on twitter'
STONEWALL: We won.
EVERYONE: What about the employer?
STONEWALL: They were found guilty.
EVERYONE: What were they guilty of?
STONEWALL: Following our advice.

This is a disaster for stonewall. Organisations aligned with them have been told they can be sued if they follow stonewall's advice. Organisations are leaving stonewall in droves.

This is a big win for Allison and for womens human rights.

Do you think a smaller organisation would want to fork out 27k plus their own legal costs?

I don't know about anyone else, but before I decide to contribute to any fundraiser, I read more than just the headline. I was well aware that GCC and stonewall were being sued, I was also aware that the case against stonewall would be harder.

I chose to contribute and would do so again, because these cases ultimately provide protection for us all.

Look up ‘aggravated damages’.

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.

This. The message is clear. Two significant judgments in a month that show that gender critical feminist beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010.

How much money did GCC spend on this case?

It will have been hundreds of thousands of pounds.

In addition, for a Chambers that promotes its "progressive" credentials to have been found discriminating against a black female lesbian is hugely significant.

Shafted seems appropriate terminology.....

Is there a reason why this tread isn't on the 'trending' list? It seems to have plenty of recent contributions.

Apart from exposing stonewall as an organisation that is likely to bring its clients into disrepute, Ms Bailey's case has exposed a toxic culture at GCC which is supposed to stand for social justice. They came across as incompetent, poorly managed, homophobic and bullying. It certainly isn't somewhere a black lesbian should feel offers her a future.

Having listened to much of the evidence, this was the result I was expecting. The GCC barristers hoist themselves by their own petard and their evidence effectively made the case against them, which is why they’d be foolish to appeal. The loss of work claim was saved for GCC by the evidence of the clerks, the chief of whom appeared to be entirely ambivalent about the politics. Stonewall threw GCC under the bus by pointing out rightly that GCC were responsible for their own behaviour and didn’t have to take their advice. However they may be celebrating a win, but who now is going to want to take their advice? I think it may have deeper reaching consequences for them.

Very odd isn't it? I shall report and ask