I wonder if the vets not sending key staff as live witnesses may be related to the shifted burden of proof. So they're claiming without either documentary evidence or key witness available to be cross examined that Bailey was unpleasant to staff?
It does seem a little far fetched that Bailey would lose her temper over a small matter of poor service from a vet surgery when she managed to keep it through all the crap of the original court case.
Though there is also the general misogynist trope that women, particularly middle-aged women, who complain about anything are shrieking, shouting, whining, "entitled", "Karens". However right they are about whatever they're trying to get fixed. There are many people who wouldn't draw much distance between 'she reasonably complained about a data protection breach and our staff were upset about being in trouble about it' and 'she shouted at our staff and upset them'.
I imagine though Bailey must have a reason to think it's GC beliefs not sex discrimination.