Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

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

I wont have time to listen, but trust in the tireless work of those on FWR who follow and keep us informed.

This decision has huge implications not just for Allion Bailey's case, but presumably in many other scenarios where an external group thinks it has the right to try and tell and organisation how they should think - and then act.

What's remarkable is how Stonewall still seems to be going and admired by some.

I see a women (sorry to preusme!) has been appointed the new CEO. And seems to have a history of working for very respectable charities.

@Wundar www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4615554-what-is-allison-baileys-spaghetti-briefcase

The skeleton is very clear (I would expect nothing less, given the author). I'm struggling to see what defence can be put up against it.

The complaint being motivated by the protected characteristic was agreed by both thebtribinal and EAT, and was a finding of fact more than a legal interpretation, so I can't see that being overturned.

The 'but for' is an absolute slam dunk. The investigation had been closed. But for the Stonewall intervention it would not have been reopened. Unarguable.

The intervenimg act by Garden Court breaking the chain of causation makes no sense.The clause states that A is liable 'whether or not' it results in discrimination by B. If B's action breaks the chain of causation, then the clause would only apply in situations where A's actions did not result in B discriminating. Not 'whether or not'.

I agree with the skeleton that intent cannot reasonably be a factor. Doesn't fit with how it's written, given that 'knowingly'is used in other places and not here, and would be too hard to establish either way.

Bananarama was ruled out by the original tribunal.

The only avenue I can see is narrowness of interpretation of 'induce'. And I'm convinced by the skeleton argument against that.

Someone else out there might find this generated summary of the tweet, background and possible outcomes useful:

Summary of the Tweet and Background
The tweet by Allison Bailey (@BluskyeAllison), a gender-critical barrister and co-founder of the LGB Alliance, announces her upcoming Court of Appeal hearing against Stonewall on October 21-22, 2025. It details live-streaming info, links to case documents (including Stonewall's 2019 email complaining about her views to her employer, Garden Court Chambers), and her legal team. The tweet emphasizes crowd-funding support and the case's six-year history.
Background: In 2019, Bailey publicly criticized Stonewall's transgender policies (e.g., supporting trans women as lesbians) and helped launch the LGB Alliance. Stonewall, via its Diversity Champions scheme (which Garden Court Chambers joined), emailed her chambers protesting her "transphobic" tweets, implying they breached professional standards and strained their relationship. Chambers investigated, upheld the complaint, and discriminated against her (e.g., withholding work), leading to her 2020 lawsuit. The Employment Tribunal (2022) ruled her gender-critical beliefs protected, finding chambers liable for discrimination/victimization (awarding damages), but dismissed claims against Stonewall under Equality Act 2010 s.111 (instructing/causing/inducing discrimination). The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld this in July 2024, reasoning Stonewall's email was the "occasion" but not intentional inducement, and it wasn't fair to hold them liable. Bailey now appeals to the Court of Appeal, granted permission due to the case's "real prospect of success" and "general importance" in clarifying if organizations like Stonewall can pressure employers over protected beliefs without liability.
The core issue: Whether Stonewall's actions unlawfully induced discrimination against Bailey for her protected beliefs.
Likelihood of Possible Outcomes
The appeal focuses on interpreting s.111 narrowly (as per lower tribunals) vs. broader liability for Stonewall's influence. Based on legal commentary, novelty of s.111 case law, and permission grounds, here are estimated likelihoods (subjective, as courts are unpredictable; no betting odds or insider info available):

• Appeal succeeds (Court finds Stonewall liable for inducing discrimination, potentially ordering damages/reconsideration): ~35-40%. Rationale: Permission indicates arguable merit and public interest; the case tests uncharted Equality Act territory, and Bailey's team argues Stonewall's email created liability by pressuring her employer. Success could expose Stonewall's schemes to scrutiny but faces uphill battle overturning two prior rulings.
• Appeal fails (Court upholds dismissal, Stonewall avoids liability): ~60-65%. Rationale: Lower tribunals consistently found no intent or fair basis for liability, emphasizing blame on chambers' response. Appellate courts defer to fact-finders unless clear legal error, and this aligns with cautious interpretations of "inducement." If dismissed, the case ends, reinforcing Stonewall's practices but possibly spurring legislative review.

She's lost twice against Stonewall already. What's she going to say this time that she could have said but didn't the first and second time?

The org I work has just left Stonewall (hooray). But I had a look at the list on Sex Matters of all the companies and organisations that are still members, and I was amazed by how long it is.

In granting permission, Rt Hon Lord Justice Singh found that the grounds of appeal lodged on Ms Bailey’s behalf:
“have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.”

Why not ask the judge who granted her appeal, mate?

Give him a bell. I’m sure he’ll elaborate.

For Women Scotland had to go to the highest court in the land before judges came to a sensible and coherent judgment. This is not unusual. Appeals to a higher court have succeeded in the past, so why do you suggest that Allison Bailey cannot win this appeal?

my former employer is still a member and likely always will be thanks to who their head of equality is.

With all due respect, that is the silliest post on Mumsnet today, possibly this week (and there’s stiff competition). Do you not understand the purpose of appellate courts?

I think we can safely say the answer to that is no.

Christinapple · Today 12:26

She's lost twice against Stonewall already. What's she going to say this time that she could have said but didn't the first and second time?

But the important fact is that she won against GCC. Do you think that Stonewall actively persuaded GCC to take action against Alison Bailey?

You've posted this sentiment at least ten times on FWR. What are you saying this time that you could have said but didn't all the other times?

Ready and strapped in for the week.

Divine assistance might be needed to get through this!

That, or support biscuits, pre-planned lessons and gin. Lots and lots of gin!

Allison won’t be saying anything nor will Stonewall. This is not about providing further evidence because it’s about a point of law.

You know you can preview posts before pressing post? Quite useful. Could help avoid the buttock clenching embarrassment of posting on a thread about a legal appeal whilst proving you don't know what a legal appeal means.

Wishing Alison all the luck in the world.

I see this as a win-win.

Obviously if they are guilty of encouraging organisations to break the law, that would be a very appropriate comeuppance.

But if they win and their defence is along the lines of 'we don't expect companies to take any notice of silly old us, we can't be expected to behave legally...', well, I basically chalk that up as a win for us as well.

From TT

We have 3 cases this week:

Tuesday & Wednesday - Allison Bailey vs Stonewall in Court of Appeals - will be on @tribunaltweets2

More information on previous hearings and findings in this case are here:

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bailey-vs-stonewall

As some of you are aware, I paste the Twitter/X feed from Tribunal Tweets as soon as they are posted so you can follow along without leaving MN.

I won't be able to live paste this time because I am in hospital. Unfortunately I have an infected wound (two weeks and counting, operation cancelled four times, now scheduled for Tuesday morning). I will be following along but I'm not in a calm environment and get interrupted by medication, observations and visits from the medical professionals taking care of me.

Either someone else can live paste, or you can bear with me as I try to keep up. I think it would be best if someone else can do it. I will be following along and commenting when I can.

so there's nothing live / for us to follow on monday?
I will have multiple tabs open and will probably get confused between them all!

Oh Myrtle, you are going though the wars. I hope they can sort everything out for you, take care.

It's legally an interesting case because AFAIK there have been no previous cases where any person or organisation has been found to be in breach of Section 111 of EA2010.