The entire judgement makes it clear that the judge accepts there was plenty of anecdotal evidence that numerous staff had found AB unpleasant and difficult to deal with over many years.
Indeed one of the members of staff who actually agreed with her GC views it seems still found her very difficult to deal with and warned other staff about interactions with her.
But ABs personality flaws aren't what is on trial though it's whether the vets took action against her as a result of her GC views and the judgement shows that the balance of probability is that it was her GC views that caused an essentially spiteful letter to be written to her by an aggrieved employee, rather than just her rudeness to staff.
Being rude isn't against the law. Discriminating against someone because of their beliefs is. You can be both rude and legally correct which AB is here.
I come across plenty of barristers in my working life and find many of them arrogant, rude, argumentative and unpleasant. They are also tenacious, clever, astute and unbeatable in their legal knowledge and arguments.
I don't think AB is wrong, I'm just acknowledging that she is both right and also appears to not to give a shit about upsetting people and being quite difficult to deal with.
Like another poster I also suspect race and gender discrimination has as much of a part to play as beliefs. People didn't like her and because she was black, female and 'a bigot' her rudeness wasn't tolerated when itbwoudl have been if demonstrated by a white wellspoken man.
From the judgement
'154. The inference from primary facts is in my view established. I accept that there is
evidence that Ms Bailey could be difficult and aggressive with staff. However,
the absence of current warnings, the non-application of the zero tolerance policy,
the way in which the decision was taken, the denial of knowledge of Ms Bailey’s
gender critical beliefs when on balance they were aware of them, Ms Cook’s
evidence about the signing of termination letters being something the clinical
director did when that is not what happened on the two previous occasions, when
added to the evidence of the extensive discussion of Ms Bailey’s gender critical
beliefs within the practice and denial of that by the Defendant’s witnesses is more
than sufficient to pass the first stage'
Edited