Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

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

This is not going to be tested.

NC is clever, if you recall from the FWS SC case Ben Cooper represented Sex Matters who were Intervenors. Stonewall kept very quiet!

Stonewall could choose to intervene in this case and would be represented by Counsel. This causes Stonewall a dilemma - do they intervene or not. They have much to lose either way.

My understanding of why this case is going to the SC is because there is no case law on section 111(2) of the EA2010. The SC should produce a definitive definition of “causation” and that will decide if Stonewall are liable or not. Either way we will have clarity.

WRT bundles - GCC were responsible for the bundle not Stonewall. RMW was acting for Stonewall and therefore not responsible for the bundle.

Ooh Thankyou. That’s my evening sorted

You know when your toes are actually curling with secondhand cringe? That happened on behalf of that poster you are replying to.

You are welcome to think that.
I have watched Ben Cooper and Anya Palmer in action
and now Akua Rheindorf and Kwishner Falkner are free to speak

Ouch!

Quite funny though 🤣

Has Dunning-Kruger got a sale on usernames or what?

Apparently so. Is it some sort of school holiday today perhaps?

No, I had found a photo of a very over-crowded station with a screen full of cancellations - but then I realised it wasn't in the UK and I couldn't in fairness use it to suggest - sarcastically and groundlessly, obvs - that RMW's previous career in the railway business hadn't been very successful either, and quickly found a UK-based alternative photo.
Epic fail. 😧

It would be a defence, I didn't suggest it would be a good one! I'm just wondering where Stonewall are going to go with their defence - either that it didn't happen (tricky, given the 'do the right thing' comment) or that it did, but they hadn't done anything wrong.

It's never a good look when you need to explain a joke😁.

Ref inducement or causation, the EA states:

(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.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.

So it wouldn't matter if it was causation or inducement, as both are specifically prohibited?

It's no defence at all. The old legal adage is ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one).

Bundles 4: Bundle with A Vengeance.

So what do we think they will use? Just "GCC did this entirely on their own and their listening to anything we did or said was, even if it looks very much like we'd advised them AND tried to apply pressure here, entirely their own fault"?

They will try & claim that the email sent by Kirrin Medcalf was not intended to induce GCC to breach the EA by discriminating against AB for her GC beliefs. Furthermore they will claim that even if it was intended to induce GCC to breach the EA that Kirrin Medcalf was a rogue employee not acting on behalf of Stonewall. I don't think that this latter point will fly as employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

I don't think the first bit flies, either.

Medcalf's email stated that Bailey's actions and her link to GCC "threatens the positive relationships yourselves [sic] have built with the trans community...For GCC to continue associating with a barrister who is actively campaigning for a reduction in trans rights [eye roll] and equality, while also specifically targeting members of our staff with transphobic abuse on a public platform puts us in a difficult position with yourselves [sic]".

How the ET saw that as 'protest' escapes me.

And there should be an extra charge for the reflexive pronoun abuse.

🤦‍♀️😂😂😂

The reason I don’t think it will make a difference is that it’s not stonewall’s advice that MF claims to be the problem. Stonewall is not in court for getting the law wrong, so saying they had good intentions when they did so is an irrelevant factor. The SC isn’t going to judge the correctness of Stonewall’s advice under its champions scheme. This hearing is not a Judicial Review-like process into Stonewall Law.

I agree 100% that I am not august like Baroness Faulkner nor Alia Reindorf. Can I respectfully point out though that there are some widely differing expectations for the SC here? One person feels that because the appeal is lodged only on the basis of s.111(2) (cause discrimination) and not s.111(3) (induce discrimination) the SC will not refer to or clarify inducement at all, i.e. will take a very narrow view of their remit, and produce a judgment that is tightly focused on the specifics of this case only. Others are hoping for a widely ranging opinion that will have wide ranging consequences throughout the industry. Those seem to be very different outcomes.

Can they do that at this point? While this might be a typical strategy we’ve seen from the other Tribunals that the Rs just double down on how right they are. I reckon they won’t throw KM under the bus because that wouldn’t help them escape anyway

So they have to show how it’s not causation (which seems to be the broader term which include the inducement).

BC needs to read up on behavioural economics and choice architecture methinks. The Behavioural Insights unit of gov was set up in 2010 i think and is taught in business schools. Any CEO worth their salt, looking to expand their business, would at least consider how to use these techniques.

Ive just finished reading the TT of the first hearing and Alison’s evidence was interesting. The bit she said about Stonewall “as good as” instructing or similar. She’s dead right but didn’t have the vocab to explain it. Einstein and Cialdini’s works explain it all imo

Yes, you are wrong. About many things.

Ah stop being so “factual”. Were in a post truth society now you know 🙄

The appeal is on s111(2) causation but not s111(3) inducement.

So it may be sufficient that the effect of the email was that GCC did discriminate against AB irrespective of Medcalf’s intent

Sorry