Lorna Young v Manchester City Council, Employment Tribunal, May 2026

[Mmmnotsure]

Lorna Young is taking her former employer, Manchester City Council, to Employment Tribunal. The case began today. It is being live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets https://x.com/tribunaltweets
and coverage is also available on their Substack
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council

Lorna Young was Equality Team Manager at MCC. She was dismissed, among other grounds, for her social media activity.

Lorna Young is gender critical and Catholic, and opposes surrogacy. She is claiming unfair dismissal, and discrimination and harassment because of religion or belief, and disability.

Court adjourned until 21/22 September.

Why was it adjourned? The case was supposed to run 11 - 22 May 2026 but finished early yesterday afternoon with over two days left this week. It's not as though they have set aside more than two days in September.

Sorry, I just cut and pasted 'Court adjourned until 21/22 September.' to be helpful! that's all I know - maybe somebody else can give the details.

The remaining witness for the respondent is on sick leave so not available for cross-examination this week.

Yes back in late September. Due to witness availabilty. And then its the witnesses birthday so she doesn't want Lorna and her GC ways to spoil her very special day. So the barrister asked if they could delay for a few weeks. For a birthday. And it wasn't even likely she'd still be on the stand for her birthday. But you know she might be. And its her special day.

A reminder on how to get access to view in September.

A couple of days prior so Thursday 17 September or so (it starts on Monday 21st September) take the following steps.

Contact the Tribunal at [email protected]

Include Lorna Young v MCC in the subject & body

"Request to observe remotely” in the subject heading to request a remote link.

Thanks, I have added a reminder in my calendar

Come back here and remind us too ;-)

I guess a few more weeks of stress for Lorna Young count for nothing?
All seems a bit one sided

The thing about the WhatsApp group is bonkers. I’ve lost my phone before and restored chats from a back up - I didn’t have to tell it to do that, it just reinstalled all my chats when I logged into the app on a new phone.

What are the chances that absolutely everyone in the chat not only lost their phone or otherwise lost access to WhatsApp but also didn’t have automatic back up enabled, when it’s the default setting?

Thanks to @Mmmnotsure for the thread, @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts for the pasting, and Tribunal Tweets as always.

I’m finding this case quite horrifying. I think it’s the idea of Lorna Young’s colleagues hunting down her private account and discussing it behind her back, and that the whole situation having such a terrible impact on her mental health. All this over four tweets, expressing legally-protected views that many (most) people hold. It’s really sinister. Imagine, god forbid, if she had taken her own life, no tribunal had taken place, and this shower of bastards carrying on with their agenda and smugly assuring each other that it was nothing to do with them 😞

Surely the tribunal will see through this bullshit.

Since the bizarre efforts of EJ Sandy Kemp and his tribunal panel, frankly I trust nae fucker.

But I do have hope that the Kemp Conundrum is unrepeatable.

amazing coincidence isnt it?

Wasnt it 2 tweets and 2 likes from an anonymous account?

I think the Met having had to apologise to Glinner this week about overreactions to tweets surely should be highlighted here?

don’t forget the Maria Kelly decision …that still has me floored.

If substantial parts of different team members complaints are identical then there is a high likelihood that they have been shared electronically between LY's team
If the evidence for this electronic sharing is not included in the respondents submissions then is there is a strong suggestion that this information has been deliberately withheld or destroyed
Were LY's team members questioned about the similarities in their complaints? Did they have any explanation?

Of course not. Frankly, women are at the bottom of the pile in terms of equality issues and the decision on this matter had already been made before the investigation started. So what was the point in asking ‘difficult’ questions?

I know, it is most damning. The inability of the witnesses to be specific when answering questions about the reason(s) for Lorna’s dismissal stinks of a lack of integrity in my view. They know what the true principal reason for Lorna’s dismissal was.

Having worked in HR in the public sector, I would be astounded if there wasn’t an email and/or other electronic documents trail about Lorna’s case. I think it’s safe to assume the contents are very prejudicial to the Council (along the lines you described). I also wouldn’t be surprised if they haven’t been disclosed due to professional embarrassment it would cause some individuals who are obviously quite high up in HR for the council.

Unbelievable, some might say...

Thank you, @SexRealistic. for the condensed report. As a non-native speaker living in a non-english country it's difficult to follow the short form/abbrev. tweets about a law subject I don't know much about and keeping all the involved ducks in a row. 🤯

Also found Searle credible despite the fact that she'd burst into tears during her evidence after being caught in a lie by NC.

Yes but the entire cohort who watched the entire shambles know that those statements make Kemp dodgy, stupid or an ideologue.

We know he’s not credible and Naomi and Ben will prove it. And it will be beautiful.

Wot no Ben Cooper?

I think it’s highly unlikely that there aren’t any emails/ notes. However, HR teams who have been subject to SARs have developed processes to taking things off line and/or make records undiscoverable.

As a senior leader, I tend to get cc’d into messages along the lines of ……. ‘Are you aware of the grievance issues raised by an F1 based in Blue Ward. The F1 continues to…….’. The thread then continues with no names being mentioned.