Allison Bailey sues TRA vets

[messybundles]

Looks like Allison was kicked out of her vets due to her gender critical beliefs, she's suing them with financial support from JKR using the EHRC's Akua Reindor KC.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14828079/JK-Rowling-friend-banned-vet-gender-beliefs-dog-fat.html

Well we will just have to see how it turns out. I just can't see how her GC beliefs could affect her visits to the vets or why they would be bothered about them if they knew. Unless she'd spoken about them in some sort of offensive way. She doesn't seem to offer any reason why she thinks this is the cause. She doesn't say they've said anything to her about it, they're just claiming she was rude and unpleasant. If she had some evidence it would be different. I just think there are far better uses for that fund, this seems petty and a bit, well, imaginary really. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong!

It’s hard to believe that Akua Reindorf would agree to represent her if there wasn’t strong evidence

This.

I think it will turn out to be a very important landmark case.

It's not down to Allison to prove anything, it's down to the vet practice to prove they weren't discriminating against her for her gender critical views.

Yes but she's making the claim so there has to be some sort of basis or evidence for that claim. She can't just say it's because of her GC views out of nowhere. I didn't see anything where she said why she thought this was the case. But perhaps she has some evidence tucked in her back pocket.

In the Wings over Scotland case his accountant said he didnt want to do his accounts any more because they have trans clients who wouldnt like it, and he put it in an email!

https://x.com/WingsScotland/status/1933493250922365212

Haha! Well let's see if there's something like that in this case then. They're keeping it under wraps if so.

This is a shame.

I think the fund is a great idea, but this case?? What is Bailey suing for? Hurt feelings? That’s not a good use of money, I don’t think.

That's not how things work. I can't just raise a case against a business and say they have discriminated against me because I am a lesbian with no evidence.

You can't prove a negative.

They will say, 'no we didn't, we didn't even know she was a lesbian, we did this because she was rude to our staff'

More evidence will change my mind, but based upon the reported facts in this article, it would mean madness for discrimination law if this succeeds

You’d hope so but barristers have the cab rank rule so can’t refuse a case just because they don’t like it or don’t think it has merit. Of course she could advise Allison of that, but if Allison chooses to pursue it nevertheless then Akua couldn’t just opt out.

That said, Allison is clearly not an average client who might pursue something hopeless just to ‘have their day in court’ or ‘on principle’ - she’ll be well aware of the costs, stress and risk of litigation, particularly meritless litigation, so you would have thought she wouldn’t choose to pursue something that has no real chance.

Yes, you would think the accountant would have had more sense!

🤣

You can't prove a negative.

They wouldn't have to. If the vet can demonstrate that they have a policy on unacceptable customer behaviour, that they apply it consistently rather than just when it suits them, and that they followed it in this case, then they're good.

I think some posters on here might be amazed what can emerge from a simple Subject Access Request under GDPR/DPA, let alone Disclosure under Civil Procedure Rules.

Some businesses have a habit of letting staff put a lot of ill-advised opinions on group emails and group chats, in telephone notes, and in work journals.

Sometimes you find a nugget on drilling down into the detail.

What an odd case. Have to assume Allison and Akua know what they're doing, given their respective records.

Some absolutely are. There have been massive discussions about Stonewall on vet groups on Facebook (pro-trans, I believe) and Vet Surgeon forum (more mixed - think there’s a preponderance of older vets there) where there were absolutely some ideologues. The RCVS was also heavily captured, Stonewalled to the hilt, with a social media policy that used to really worry me.

I think lots of vets are from the same privileged background as other groups whose children become social warriors at their naice school.

I think, unless she has some actual evidence, that she’s quite likely on a hiding to nothing. The timing of her “sacking” could be significant, I guess, if it happened at the same time she hit the news. She might also have some evidence of the dispute with the vet who’s no longer there, but if the clinic staff are united against her and willing to testify that she’s been rude, it might be her word against theirs.

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

Hopefully they're not barking up the wrong tree.

🤣🤣🤣

You're wrong, I don't think you've read the article

Ms Reindorf KC told the judge that it is for the vets' practice to prove that they did not discriminate against Ms Bailey's protected gender-critical characteristic, rather than for her to prove that they did.

That's just crazy!

If she wins this without producing any evidence then that is nothing to be proud of. It can't be right that the vet's have somehow got to disprove some idea in her head

You're leaving out an important piece of info in the article

"She told the judge that it is for the vets' practice to prove that they did not discriminate against Ms Bailey's protected gender-critical characteristic, rather than for her to prove that they did.

'The claimant has shifted the burden of proof and... the defendant cannot satisfy the court that it did not do the act alleged or that the act was in no sense whatsoever because of the claimant's gender-critical belief,' she said."

Initially, Allison Bailey must present a prima facie case that she's been discriminated against. Once she does that, the burden shifts to the defendants (the vet's office) to prove that they did not discriminate.

Here is a good explanation
When you make a discrimination claim, you need to show the court evidence that you’ve been treated unfairly and that the reason you’ve been treated unfairly is because of a protected characteristic.....

When you make a discrimination claim, you need to provide the court with evidence from which it could decide that the discrimination took place. The obligation on you to provide this evidence is called the burden of proof.\

To satisfy your burden of proof, you need to show the court facts from which it could decide without any other explanation from the person or organisation you're taking action against, that you've been discriminated against...

If the court thinks you’ve shown enough facts to meet the basic legal test, it will conclude you’ve been discriminated against unless the defendant can provide a good enough explanation for your treatment. The burden of proof is said to shift to the defendant. They would have to show that your treatment had nothing to do with a protected characteristic.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/cymraeg/Y-Gyfraith-a-Llysoedd/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/what-do-you-need-to-show-the-court-in-a-discrimination-claim/

Thanks, that's really helpful. I guess she must have something that she thinks proves her case then.

There's nothing in that article about what that proof is though. It more or less says it's because she thinks so. We could all go around suing businesses based on ' because we think so'. There's got to be to this, or there should be

'In court documents, her lawyers claim Ms Bailey was 'directly discriminated against' by the practice due to beliefs which are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, and says an internal memo which branded her 'absolutely vile' was probably prompted by disapproval of her beliefs, rather than concerns about her conduct towards staff'

'Probably prompted '
It doesn't sound very robust. I just can't fathom why she's doing this.

She's doing it because she's constantly being persecuted by TRAs, they've attempted to kill her dog at least once already.