Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

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

From TT2

...What the EA prohibits is acting on those beliefs subjecting others to detriment. This applies both ways.
GC or KM
J question - the EAT trying to pick up on what the ET said about protest. But if ET is merely a protest.
Don't dispute this?

BC is is by the by because he's not expressing to the world at large
J - he was entitled to write? There must be a point where you can say 'I disagree'
BC - yes, that is. Employees allowed to express views in workplace

From TT2

BC it is by the by, because KM gone the extra mile, making allegations of transphobia.

1. The EAT took into account para 70.3. The suggestion that KM was not acting because of belief itself but a manifestation of that [quotes example in order to make that distinction] Court of Appeal Higgs para 74

I am loving Ben Cooper’s use of Banarama against Stonewall!

From TT2

The EAT was wrong to say you can draw distinction between allegedly and actually objectionable.
Those 3 aspects of EAT decision are further errors, ought not to have waded in

Even if EAT were right, and the test was fair or just or reasonalbe in way they suggest that was not on any view the test applied by tribunal. And requires application of judgement by first instance tribunal. Even

From TT2

if you are against me on test at the very least, if it was diff test, it wasn't applied by tribunal quotes Jaffrey which makes that point.

R - what we have heard is an attempt to challenge the findings of fact at the Emp Trib.

From TT2

apologies have lost sound.

From TT2
[As a reminder IO is Ijeoma Omambala KC - Barrister for Respondents]

IO - what sections 111 impose strict liability in relation to person A
My submissions will firstly consider basis of case. In fairness to ET and the context one ought to look at those reasons.
Tribunal reasons I turn to Stat Provisions.

From TT2

IO the respondent's position - the C lost the case on facts. The ET did not accept analysis of claimant.
The facts lead the ET to make decision it did

IO - Tab 10 core bundle. Identify the way in which the complaint is put against second respondent
The facts relied on can be seen page 226

From TT2

I IO - Sorry p221. para 14. We see the C identifying that a complaint was made from first respondent.
Next page - C assertion that having engaged fully with investigation Stonewall fully upheld.

Claimant - GCC colluded with Stonewall and went on to say that the complaint against her was procured by a member of GCC. the allegation an explicit inducement to GCC by Stonewall

Para 18 the C case was that the Diversity Programme that framed relationship between GCC and SW this dictated the direction of GCC
J - does it say that? It doesn't explicitly refer to diversity.
IO - I accept that correction

From TT2

IO - p256. YOu wil see that para 3 there is info about nature of diversity champ programme as it was at that time.
Para 4 of this doc, you will see description of the nature of the relationship between Stonewall and GCC and you o

will see the acceptance that Stonewall was a service provider by way of Diversity Programme. The respondent accepted that it was a service provider to GCC and therefore had a relevant relationship

From TT2

R sets out basis of complaint to GCC. YOu will see in setting out position para 10, SW state that KM was not a member of the team responsible for Diversity Champ

scheme or KM not aware GCC a member and that after submitting his complaint there was no more contact between KM and GCC. No response to complaint by Stonewall.
Assertion KM not involved in investigation. They were not privy to claimant's response to that.

From TT2

J - Question about ? particulars.
IO - they are relatively lengthy. We have a list of issues, that is sufficient
IO p259 a summary of the nature of the activities that are covered within the DC programme. You will see and i will suggest that the nature of activities relate

Bloody hell Myrtle you are unstoppable 💪🏻

I hope the op has done its job and you are on the mend now 💐

From TT2

to advice and guidance to HR and other matters and the point made by SW at that time was that merely by accepting the chambers as a scheme champion and offering services they were not inducing unlawful treatment.

IO the scope of allegations C made about SW in that context one could look less harshly at the passages at the decisions of the ET.
It is helpful to take you to list of issues that ult the parties invited the tribunal to determine. End of ET decision.

I think it is fair comment to describe as unweildly. You can see allegations made against SW. And again I will leave you to read those allegations to yourselves, but one can see that the scope was wider than the matter that leads us here today
J - this was a pretty massive trial.

From TT2

IO the claim against SW was founded on matters that the ET would be bound to accept, Turn to those. The first was that the action of KM submitting complaint was in the purpose of supporting formal action against

From TT2

C not perceived safety concern. The next specific finding the ET made was that before submitting complaint KM discussed complaint with colleagues at SW.
The third finding was that when KM submitted complaint that he knew GCC was a member of diversity champ scheme.

he 4th was that KM made implied infliction of reputational harm

From TT2

5th that KM conduct was consistent with wanting to exert influence. Consistent with SW seeking to silence GC views. Specific finding the ET could and should make in upholding her case against SW the other element was the extent of the challenge to SW

[more here about KMs motivation apols missed some here]
These were all claims C made in submissions this is in part the reason we have the decision we do have

IO the contention from the C that SW intervened with how scheme members and did so routinely and had done so in the case of this claim. That is the context of the complaint Ms Bailey brought. Those were the matters on which she sought specific findings.

If she’s this sharp after having surgery this morning??

Oh is RMW not representing them? Sad times

It's just copying and pasting. Not much thought involved.

And the surgery was to remove any infected tissue and stitch up a wound. Not a very big wound. It was cancelled four times last week.

I should be sent home soon with 12 weeks of oral antibiotics.

KM’s supposed ignorance of Stonewall’s own diversity scheme is doing a lot of heavy lifting for IO / Respondents. I’ve never really understood the degree to which it was accepted by the ET and EAT that KM was somehow not the same entity as Stonewall itself.

From TT2

Having looked at the way in which the case was put I want to just if I may take some time to look at ET decision itself.
It is helpful to note at P94 an indication of structure ET imposed on this decision and you will see that at the top of the para 33 - the findings of fact para

IO - in the intervening paras there are findings which impact on the claims against SW and other matters relevant to this appeal. In relation to that broader context and the way C made case,

think it's right court sees ET conclustion about the interaction between SW and GCC pursant to Diversity Cham Scheme. It is clear in my submission that the contact is minimal which is relevant when it comes to inducement.

KM acknowledges the soft power in the SW relationship
Regarding tweets - the internal decision making how complaints generates generated by AB tweets ought to be dealt with internally and what one sees there is before any intervention by KM is a view within GCC that the tweets

were damaging and effecting GCC business.
Refers to GCC constitution and damaging reputation. Well before arrival of KM or anyone else in SW.

From TT2

IO - one sees at p129 the judgement and reasons set out the sequence of events of investigation.
There was the initial conclusion that there was nothing to investigate.
Events directly relating to SW where KM complaint email is found by ET to be drafted on 28 Oct and sent

31 October.
Para 190 - what KM did and said
Para 191 - this is material the ET record that it was the C case that Ms Brewer colluded with SW in the submission of complaint and/or invited them to submit that complaint.

Para 199...the ET made some material findings in my submssion around the KM complaint how it was put forward. KM didn't know Ms Brewer. KM only joined SW a few weeks before meeting and unaware of GCC being a member of Diversity Champion. ET say that was plausible

She is a complete buffoon, My Lord. If you ever met her, you’d agree with me.

Do you think. Stonewall deliberately got KM to make the complaint to give them. over? He's a newbie, wasn't on that project, didn't know much about GCC etc?