Full thread
I am sorry that I have not succeeded in my Appeal against Stonewall.
I am grateful to The Hon. Mr Justice Bourne for his reasoned judgment, although I am of course disappointed with the result.
I will consider the judgment with my legal team, but my initial view is that there are five key aspects of the judgment which are of concern.
1/7
Firstly, the judgment gives permission for organisations like Stonewall to procure the withdrawal of employment from people whose protected characteristics they disagree with, if this can be framed as a “protest”. This seems to go directly against the terms of the Equality Act.
2/7
Secondly, sight should not be lost of the fact that Stonewall, a charity set up to protect the legal rights of lesbians like me, should be the ones to limit workplace rights like this. How far they have fallen.
3/7
Thirdly, the judgment relies on the concept of “fair or reasonable or just”. This is surprising because the judge heard no submissions on this from either party in the 2-day Appeal, and it didn’t feature at all in the 117-page employment appeal judgment or the 23-day employment appeal hearing.
4/7
Fourthly, the judgment appears self-contradictory. It gives various scenarios to justify its conclusion, at least one of which appears directly to confound that conclusion.
5/7
Fifthly, my case is about direct discrimination, but the judgment also considers indirect discrimination. There, it appears to establish that workplace policies of “Stonewall Law” through the Diversity Champions Scheme – e.g. the removal of single sex spaces – DOES in fact generate legal liability for Stonewall. This is a hollow victory for them.
6/7
I hope to expand upon these five points in greater detail in due course. I will now consider next steps carefully with my legal team. In the meantime, thank you to everyone who has supported me. I am very sorry that we have been unable to prevail on this occasion.
7/7
END