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

iirc, it was one of the previous threads. For all the claims that everyone in GCC was too busy to gossip, or only discussed football, some legal people from elsewhere confessed to much conversation about GCC round the watercooler, various legal WhatsApp groups etc.

That is such a long list of “Champions” and a lot of revenue!

That was Kids Company, not Kidscape wasn't it? They're an entirely different children's charity.

Mayas and Allisons cases were most definitely strategic litigation.

They were not the first women to come forward with tales of being discriminated against in the workplace for being gender critical.

They were backed because of their impeccable conduct and credentials, and because they would clearly be able to hold their own in court.

If either of these women had said or done anything truly transphobic, their cases would have crumbled.

Please take note of this. We now have the clear and full backing of the law to take this to our employers and to open up this conversation.

We will only be effective if learn from the example Maya, Allison and others have shown. We need to be respectful, moderate and reasonable in all public fora.

If companies had been open to critical thought about Stonewall, they would have left by now.

I think they've been asleep at the wheel. There will be some serious distancing going on in the near future.

You're probably right Helleofabore. They should be sitting themselves but lack the self awareness to do so. Let's hope companies dealing with them don't have the same lack of awareness and can see the possible consequences of following their advice.

It was all about the virtue signalling and polishing their woke halos. Not so shiny now that a black, lesbian has won aggravated damages against GCC is it.

Fantastic news, well done Allison, along with Maya, very brave.

Please please no appeal

I think the reason she didn't win against Stonewall was because no one could believe that anybody would listen to anything that Kirrin said.

For AB's sake I hope not, but if they do GCC should know that we have her back and we will happily get out our gardening equipment again to let them demonstrate in public for a second time how they discriminated against her.

I can't help having this mental image of all these supposed highly intelligent keen legal minds being sucked in by the likes of KM who needed his dog and mum to support him as they gave evidence.

It begs the question how many other organisations sucked up to similar tactics from KM that have not come to light and if so should be feeling pretty exposed right now.

What some people don't seem to realise is that these cases don't just open the doors for future litigation if a person with GC beliefs is discriminated against, but also those in the past.

Most organisations do not want to go to tribunal because of reputational risk, so the other knock on is now how many potential cases might be settled to avoid that - knowing the outcome of AB/MF's cases.

My experience of such settlements is that they are far in excess of £22k because aside from reputation risk, the cost of legal action is considerable and payouts reflect the fact this is avoided.

What we have here is one hell of an incentive for organisations to review their HR policies and relationship with Stonewall.

This is amazing.
I didn't cry when I got married, when my children were born etc but did find myself welling up when I read this earlier.
For me, it is important personally as it reinforces the decision in Maya's case that I can express GC views at work. However, what is more important is that I can also use both the decision and Stonewall's response to show that Stonewall aren't necessarily "right" and, as they have themselves said, are just one "input". This will make it much easier to refer to other inputs which accurately reflect what the law says and consider what they have to say when discussing amendments to and implementation of policies.
My workplace has never gone as far as being captured by Stonewall but I have had concerns for the past couple of years of having an unpopular and unusual opinion and where that would leave me. Thanks to the bravery of Allison, Maya and others, I can be more confident in fighting my very small fight. And in fighting that fight, I will continue to support those in the workplace who identify as trans or are considering changing their gender identity, but not in a way which rides roughshod over the rights of women.

I haven't got the fortitude to wade through the judgment, but had a look at the press summary. What was the reason for the tribunal not finding against GCC for their shoddy disclosure antics?

Quite. I can only speak for myself and my own donation, but watching the various GCN and Stonewall staff shit the bed so effusively when giving testimony would've felt good value at twice the cost. Whatever the outcome. It was that entertaining.

The fact that EJ Goodman wrote the whole supporting cast for Stonewall's Head of Trans Inclusion's appearance into the formal judgment for posterity is certainly much appreciated, and deserves its own Twenty Twelve David Tennant voice over.

Indeed 😂😂😂😂

Going back to re-read it in David Tennant's voice...

Snort. Which page?

I agree with this but it annoys me that it’s true! Like where only women who are ‘perfect victims’ of sexual assault (not drunk, no revealing clothing, not in a relationship with a wrong un) get support and press coverage.

It should be enough here that women say no and we should be treated like adults and taxpayers and voters and be respected.

That's pretty big front page splash on the DM!

Funny that despite all her detractors rushing to scream 'she lost', the big takeaway from the reporting is her 'Victory for free speech and Women' - and not just in the DM.

Is it a coincidence that I can't find newspaper coverage on the BBC news site? 🤔

p5 para 16 (but KM, not SK?)

paras 19 & 20 = bundle

A slight aside but LOJ described it as a win for Stonewall earlier and that everything else was just 'noise.'
He then decided to tweet (since deleted) that he wanted Labour supporters to harass Keir Starmer in the street for being a fraud and a hypocrite..
Condemnation rained down from all quarters.
Fingers crossed it's the week he gets the sack from The Guardian.
Would be the perfect end to this week.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/de6fed9e-0da6-11ed-a4af-79eb4b98fc31?shareToken=8f30f089dfd8ac8641a5ecb5c043a11e

This is The Times article. It may be the same as the one linked earlier upthread.
I like the way it immediately states the influence of Stonewall on GCC.

It is such a good result for women.

Allison Bailey, I bow to you!

I remember, it was so encouraging, to watch Allison Bailey's crowdfunder grow, and grow, and grow, with so many contributions of £10, £15, £20. Not huge tax-deductible corporate finance, but £££££ collectively from ordinary women putting what they could into the crowdfunder.Thousands of us,

I agree with other posters' analysis that Stonewall got off, in strict law, on the charges; but any other organisation following Stonewall advice is now similarly vulnerable to being sued on similar grounds. And Stonewall just get to walk away from the damages, and any responsibility.

So glad for Allison Bailey!

Raising a glass to all of us!