Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1979480101474443398?t=Sg3wz-Pq2S7lpQ2rTpJZ2g&s=19

That's how I remember it. Tribunal said stonewall weren't in a position to be able to induce Garden Court

Where do we arrive at this being about DEI training then? Where an outside company provides erroneous advice on the law (and for a fee) how can one argue there is inducement? “Or else, what?” So to speak.

In this case it would be the effect on GCCs membership and rating in the stonewall champion scheme for not following the erroneous advice that would be where the inducement could be

I just took a a look at the CA judgment. The contents of any Stonewall advice or training was not at issue, merely the complaints. So I’m confused by the idea that this will affect training advice or provision in general.

I'm not sure it will

When I said that's how I remember it in my earlier reply to you I was saying that you were not misremembering.

I agree with you, but Akua Reindorf holds that:

"The appeal could have far-reaching consequences for EDI advice given to employers by external trainers & accreditation schemes."

https://nitter.poast.org/akuareindorf/status/2052742996710363406#m

If someone could just get her along here to answer questions, I'd be obliged.

The advice given by accreditation schemes is exactly what Allison's case is about so the outcome of the appeal has obvious consequences. Were stonewall in a position to induce discrimination because GCC was a member of their scheme

what a wonderful thought.

Can FWR hold (actual) webchats with these heroes? Who would have things of interest to say and actually discuss as opposed to pasting answers pre written as party political broadcasts by advisers.

Just to add to the reply from @spannasaurus

"Yes a limited company can be a charity. Usually limited by guarantee"

In the legal case against the Women's Institute last year, the claim was against the overarching National Federation, rather than an individual Women's Institute.

The National Federation of Women's Institutes is a charity that is organised as a 'charitible company limited by guarantee'. It was incorporated back in 1990.

Prior to that, I'm not too sure what their status was.

If you read Allison’s press release you can see the wider implications. To what extent can these providers be held liable for their schemes etc.

If it was limited to whether or not a specific complaint induced a behaviour then I doubt the SC would be remotely interested. It’s about the influence SW was able to wield over organisations by requiring adherence to a certain world view in order to achieve and maintain diversity champion status for example. It you hold yourself out as the expert and arbiter of what is good practice and you are wrong are you liable for their consequences that flow from that under s111(2) EA.

I'm still not seeing it. The contents or subject of the advice given by Stonewall as part of its accreditation scheme wasn't mentioned or examined in any of the judgements.

The fact of GCC's membership of the Stonewall accreditation scheme is relevant, but so too I think it would have been if Stonewall had instead been running a balloon animals and crochet club, the loss of membership in which could equally have functioned as a lever to induce GCC to unlawful discrimination on a complaint of anti-trans/GC tweets by AB, from the chief balloon engineer.

Which is to say, yes, if you have organizations in your accreditation scheme don't threaten them with evicting them from it unless they do as you say - but that says nothing about whether the advice they pay you for as part of the scheme has to be good.

Weren’t in a position to be able to …

… and yet, they did.

The SC is going to give their ruling about inducement, what it means and how you determine who is in a position to induce. What they say will have implications for a broader set of circumstances than apply in Allison's specific case

Yes, I thought it was clear as day.

But if the advice under that scheme misstates the law and firms rely on that advice and in so doing discriminate against staff members, then have you caused the discrimination?

Let’s see what the submissions state but I suspect they will be a lot wider than the complaints.

It wasn't about any advice - there was no advice, and none that could have been in error. It was about Kirrin Medcalf's complaint only. Did Stonewall have a hold over GCC so they could be induced to act unlawfully about the complaint?

We would like to imagine that a court somewhere has specifically held the Stonewall Champion's scheme to be unlawful and that an organization was punished in court for following it. I don't think that has happened anywhere yet.

But if the advice under that scheme misstates the law and firms rely on that advice and in so doing discriminate against staff members, then have you caused the discrimination?

That's a very good question, but it's not been the question put in court in Bailey vs. GCC, and I don't think it can now be added to be put to the Supreme Court as part of this appeal.

The answer, by the way, should be a fairly clear 'no'. Bad advice doesn't "cause" or "induce" people to act on it, absent some lever like the Champions scheme or stronger. After all, what is the downside to being ejected from a scheme which is giving unlawful advice? That sounds like they'd be doing you a favour.

Otherwise nobody could ever get training or advice on any subject anywere - nobody would be able to give it, just in case - unless it was from a law firm under privilege.

I think what a number of us are saying is that if the SC is being asked to determine what meets the definition/threshold of causation for the purposes of s111(2) EA2010 they are unlikely to simply limit themselves to answering about the Medcalf complaint. They are probably going to give a wider steer on what factors might equate to causation and what won’t.

Sorry to reply to my own post but I thought this might be of interest:

.

Stonewall Equality Ltd (originally The Stonewall Lobby Group Ltd) was incorporated in 1989.

This was largely in response to the passing of Section 28 the previous year (Section 28 Local Government Act 1988)

It is quite instructive to read what their original objects were (you may notice something that is missing that they have latterly heavily leaned in to):

3 The objects for which the Association is established are:
To protect and advance the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of lesbians and gay men to be held on an equal basis with other citizens

Just going totally off-topic, Ian McKellen the actor (now Sir Ian McKellen) was one of the original people who signed the form. He was originally going to be one of the directors but dropped out for some reason.

The other original directors were the actor Michael Cashman (now Baron Cashman). He is probably best known for being the first gay character on Eastenders back in the late 1980s (Colin Russell).

The other directors were:

Jennie Wilson. She is an Australian who was also a director of London Lesbian and Gay Centre Ltd.

Linda Deborah Ballard (I don't know anything about her)

I agree with that.

But that wider steer doesn't need to look in the direction of training provision. Without more - significantly more - nexus, providing training to organizations on a commercial basis should not come close to that threshold.

So imagining this as an attempt to judicialize the contents of training so that training organizations are in terrorem for getting it wrong I think will lead to disappointment.

Bit puzzled about the privilege comment as I can’t see how you could have training delivered or general widely disseminated advice for a firm under privilege without falling foul of Three Rivers. I assume I am misunderstanding the point you are making.

My point is that simply providing bad advice on which a person acts isn't and can't be "inducement" to discriminate.

If you could pay a law firm £200 for legal advice to tell you it's fine and a good idea to put up a "no Blacks, no Irish, no Jews". That would be wrong. But the Black Irish Jewish person has no case against the law firm for their bad advice, and that bad advice doesn't have to be disclosed. You chose to act on it, that's your lookout.

On the other hand you could pay a training provider £200 to tell you it's fine and a good idea to put up a "no Blacks, no Irish, no Jews" as part of a DEI training course. I'm getting the idea that some people here think the Black Irish Jewish person who complains should have a case against the training provider for inducement. If they did, who would risk providing any kind of training, knowing nothing about how that training would be put into effect and what their liability might be?

It’s not about inducement it’s about causation. They are not the same concept at all.
The legislation says cause not induce. Cause is factual and doesn’t require an effect on the state of mind of the person engaged in the breach. Induce normally requires some sort impact on their state of mind hence you often get a “but for” test for inducement.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

Section 111 of the Act is titled "Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions"

The first three paragraphs of that act read:

(1)A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).

(2)A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(3)A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

The introduction to the Court of Appeal decision reads (para.3):

The question raised in this appeal is whether the ET was wrong to dismiss Ms Bailey’s claim against Stonewall for causing or inducing, or attempting to cause or induce, GCC to discriminate against her; and whether the EAT was therefore wrong to dismiss the first appeal.

I think we can use induce, in discussion.