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.

Having read into the case I think it’s highly interesting and will be legally important. Might be worth transcribing here and providing more detail.

Will try to find time in coming days.

I've never been a witness at an ET but have often given evidence at an inquest. I made damn sure to read through my witness statement & all the clinical notes etc regarding the patient the night before. I'm astonished at how badly prepared the HR bods are in these ETs. I think the worst was that pillock who was head of HR in the Maria Kelly v Leonardo Ltd. ET.

If it's of any help, all the tweets for this case so far are on their substack here:

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council

I'm a litigation solicitor and we actively encourage our witnesses to re-read their statements before Trial, as well as arranging a pre-Trial conference with our barrister, who will grill them on their statement in the same way they'll be grilled in Court. You'd be mad not to prep in this way.

'I don't recall', to my mind, means they lied in their statement and want to avoid contempt of court! I always tell my clients that putting something in a statement, and saying it in Court, are two very different things.

Tuesday 12 May 2026

We will shortly be live tweeting from Manchester Employment Tribunal covering Lorna Young (LY) vs Manchester City Council (MCC).
LY is gender critical and Catholic and was formerly Equality Team Manager at MCC. She was dismissed from this role due to her social media content.

LY claims:
(a) Direct discrimination because of religion or belief;
(b) Harassment related to religion or belief;
(c) Discrimination arising from disability;
(d) Harassment related to disibility;
(e) Unfair dismissal.
We're a collective of volunteer citizen journalists and are not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio above) which funds our digital & some travel costs.

We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcript of proceedings.
We anticipate a 10am start and that much of today will be set aside for reading.

Abbrevs:
LY or C - Lorna Young, the Claimant
MCC or R - Manchester City Council, the Respondent
NR - Nathan Roberts, counsel for C
Aileen McColgan KC - counsel for R
AP - C's solicitor at Leigh Day
AM - Aileen McColgan KC, counsel for R
AP - Annie Powell of Leigh Day, C's solicitor
GC - gender critical
GI(T) - gender identity (theory)
We've just spoken to the clerk and there will shortly be a private case management session that we're unable to attend / report on.

We're in
The employment judge for this hearing is EJ Dunlop.

EJ Introduces herself and NR doing opening
NR Modification of the EA in discrimination cases so is doing openers unusually. The test and authorities are on p23 of the notes. We offered to exchange this yday with the R

NR Q1 for the tribunal is whether C has a philo belief - agreed in 3 of 4 . Q2 is what were reasons for the treatment of her. Q3 do the reasons incl the belief itself. Shld someone in EDI not be GC which wld rely on the required employment test. Also hard to prove DD and cld be

NR dislike of beliefs, even if subconcious. If the reasons incl manifestation of belief, what were they and how relate to Art 9. Or are they linked to belief where Art 10 engaged. Has the employer showed manifestatios were objectionable or inappropriate - describes thresholds eg Higgs

NR Expression of belief has a v high threshold. I wont go to the authorites on philo belief. The Cs beliefs are alos religious and philosophical - which have been found protected in other cases. There is an exception for occupations and beliefs but not relied on in htis case

NR What C said was relevant to this role (discussing Higgs). She described GIT as a form of child abuse and delusional thinking and the brainwashing of children. She worked in a school and saw GIT causing damage. The sch dismissed her and said she discriminated, her language was extreme. In the end it was determined it was about how the sch was perceived. Arts 9 and 10 are engaged if say something in a public sphere. Protecting only inoffensive speech isnt free speech. Case law looked at manifestation and going through the approp tests

NR It'd be worth you going over the tests

J I looked at them over the weekend and the skeletons

NR I wont say much more. the ruling didnt say this is a checklist but relevant to this case. There was no reasonable arg for dismissing the C then. Many things are similar to this case

NR The C here has expressed that wld say things differently and was ill at the time, which is different. Ngole takes some from Higgs which was decided under Art 10 but has the same effect. The EAT said to focus on what was said and who might receive harm.

NR Even if service users were gay this still wldnt allow removal of job. The EAT looked at how the decision was made and that a disc hearing wasnt the most approp. Re Miller in policing - the high court and CoAppeal

J I have read these paras

NR Courts have looked at GC cases and the tropes used and descriptions of being hateful for having different views etc. Forstater tribunal held were straightforward expressions of views and that dismissal wasnt approp and that putting a disclaimer on X wld have been approp

NR Is this a normal case under sec13? In the CoA LJ Underhill accepted re issues of stereotyping. Can you read the 1st 2 sentences of his quotation? I'm happy to leave it there unless you want more time?

J I'm ok

NR Then I'll call the witness [LJ sworn in]

NR The Appx to your WS [approved] No further Qs from me.

J we normally run through to 1pm but let me know if you need a break.

LY I'll be ok

AM I understood y'd moved to Australia

LY I am moving permanently in April and have residency. I'm selling my house

AM You talk about your Catholic routes to yr GC views

LY Yes

AM The Catholic church is against homosexuality and SS marriage

LY I dont think so. Compassion, support and no discrimination are its approach and what I follow

AM It opposes sexual relationships tho

LY Yes

AM Condemn the sinner and not the sin

Yes

AM It opposes trans ppl and GIT in a sim way?

LY It doesnt support GIT

J Can you slow down a bit please?

AM Do u have the same view of SS r'ships as the Cath church?

LY I oppose SS marriage and support civil marriage of gay ppl.

LY I am comfy w this conflict which is a common one which will rage for some time.

AM In para 97 u say GIT is homophobic. That's not a universal view is it

No. I dont know the nos who agree and disagree w that

AM In para 98b, you say about abuse and threats from TRA incl rape threats

AM Is TERF laways a term of abuse?
LY Yes, when used by TRAs but a reclamation by womens activists
AM Is TERF one and the same as GC?
LY Can u repeat?
AM If someone critically uses the term terf, wld u read that as Terf applying to e'one who is GC?
LY Not sure I've made that distinction. I tend to use GC
AM Do u think TERF is trans exclusionary? I wldnt think TERF is an insult. Do u?
LY It depends

AM Do some ppl think it means and advocate for trans exclusion?
LY What do u mean?
AM T ppl dont exist. Is that T exclusionary
LY Possibly. It's not my beliefs.
LY I dont want to exclude them from employment housing etc
AM Is there space between terf and GC?
J Doesnt that depend on who is using it?

AM Exacrly. Are there beliefs held by the C that might be T exclusionary that The C doesnt agree with. I'll leave it there

AM Can we look at the late 2021 report on sex and gender ahead of the trans rights statement was adopted. U undertook Kieran Barnes role from late 2022

LY Yes, i started in Sept 21

AM He thought there shld be a report on sex and gender

LY The scrutiny c'tee can request reports or being given topics. As I understand he had proposed it and I took it over as head of equality. The wanted to scrutinise the work of MCC in this area.

AM So assist them on EDI

LY Yes, over various PCs and to ensure PSED

AM U set out in an email what Kieran told u about the report and having a neutral perspective given the sensitivities
Yes

AM This cld change eg after the trans rights are human rights motion?
Yes

AM And subsequent to yr discussions with Joe
Yes

AM U sent Joe and Abida lots of emails and material over this / related to this report. It went beyond what y'd normally do in a report eg covering therapy. What role wld this have had?

LY It's expected we look at whole range of services and stat responsibilities eg educ and safeguarding, eg the Cass review, and there was emerging legisaltion at this time

AM Most of the material you sent was of a GC bent? It wasnt written by those who were GC but broadly raising concerns rather than raising T inclusion?

LY Not a fair summary. we were to explore the dynamics

This just supports my suspicion that it’s a deliberate tactic so that they can say “I cannot recall”. It’s fair enough not to remember minutiae but to claim, in a meeting about dismissal of a member of staff, not to recall who was the decision maker is not a reasonable statement to make.

LY we had a n issue w refuges and having TW in them. It was a good round up of views that existed.
AM In para 20 u say you added factual reports about T issues in Manchester
LY This was created by Stephen Whittle about barriers. Was a Manch commissioned report

AM Do you have the report? I cant find it or the email of 24 March. Let's look at p662 of bundle 1. On its face is the experiences of T ppl in the city - incl crossdressers, transsexuals anfd those of no GI. Of ppl in Machester
LY Yes
AM So a factual report
LY Yes, perception based
AM The other reports are perception based tooLY
LY Which do u mean?
AM [gives pages]
LY Yes
AM So factual experiences of T ppl in Manch?
LY Yes
AM Communities of interest report..
LY Yes ppl of all PCs

AM Link to the WESC report on GRA reform
AM And their proposals to reform it. But the govt didnt agree with these?
LY Mmm, I need to refresh my memory here. Can u repeat please?
AM The WESC made 20 recommendations broadly towards self ID. So the report doesnt support GIT?
LY I dont know. It was around at the time
AM U gave reprts to Sarah and Abida?
LY Yes
AM [listing other reports incl Hilary Cass's] U sent links to LGB Alliance but not to Stonewall or gps supportive of gender ideology. U say cos they already knew about SW
LY Yes

AM Sarah said this was partial and pushing one approach. Was this a reasonable reading even if not deliberate?
LY No. We'd had lots of convos. they'd had lots of training on the gender ideology side and knew it v well. They didnt understand the sex realist side as well and wanted help on this. To give balance.
AM U were seeking to flesh out their partial understanding
LY Correct

AM There were concerns discussed w Jo Jackson
LY Jo started the convo and not me
AM Someone had raised concerns about u being othering
LY I dont recall that term being used. My role is to present work of EDI team. It wasnt on the agenda and she raised concerns about a womens
rights event and she was concerned about how the response looked for the city. I said the council was working on S&G and I wld be leading on this report. Jo said she was surprised a complaint had been raised after the corporate mtg. The Cx wasnt about othering but the report was
LY raising a personal view and not a professional one. I'd agreed that it was a v intimidating looking protest against the women's rights mtg.

AM Against yr name is scoping for the report but no ref to the convo
LY It wasnt recorded in the minutes and not in that part of the agenda
AM U say tensions between u and JJ about the report
LY Yes
AM Various emails incl one on the TRAHR motion to Fiona. U say shld we bring this into the report and u felt the motion changed the reprt. Shld Jo not be able to take the motion into account.
LY Jo wanted to move away from dynamics of S&G and wanted to support the TRAHR motion, which want what Joe? had asked for.

AM [new doc] You say, I think this is a draft email, asking about service provision.
LY My best recollection is I sent this to all service heads who I bcc to
AM U want a response by 25 April re service provision against the 3 objectives. How delivering for T residents. Jo's response to the group says [reads the reprt covers S&G and want services covering gender, ie services for women and for all LGBT] So not pushing T inclusivity
solely?
LY Yes

AM She wanted to set out who services were directed at? Isnt that fair?
LY The report was moving towards similar ones on other PCs. Jo's email was appraoching a deep dive report that cld take over the whole report rather than its orig intention
AM U refer to a convo w Jo, and say you felt y'd been given an impossible task now the R had taken a position and cld no longer write a neutral report
Yes

AM Why isnt it possible?
LY The motion was passed v publicly during high media coverage. Hard for the council to say it's neutral and respects all perspectives when has publicised it hold one position, as it had done
AM It wldnt apply to a report listing T inclusive services?
Ly I dont understand
AM This is the debate and these are the services
LY It wld be unlikely for a report to list SS services. It never developed that far and was scrapped by Shamila.

LY We cldnt say which werent T inclusive. The report was scrapped when I was on long term sick. When I came back I saw the drafts and they were listing T inclusive. Shamila had been v clear that there was to be no mention of GC beleifs, which shocked me

LY They did a deep dive report and GC had been dropped for a deep dive on LGBT provision.
AM The R was entitled to have a view on T rights surely?
LY No, had to follow the law and the PSED to foster good relations

AM It;s a duty of process and not outcomes..have due regard
LY I'm no expert on PSED
AM The council isnt obliged to be impartial tho
LY It has an officer side. Had to play due regard to diff PCs which I think include religious and GC

AM She never said services had to be T inclusive
LY I beleive she did. What do we mean by inclusive?

AM You were worried re PCs and JJ didnt want the report to go into S&G dynamics. She didnt feel it shld go into depths of issues and felt services had to be inclusive and not exclude any group. The last sentence in para 136, had to look at which services to prioritise for women

AM We need yr expert knowledge on how to balance competing rights. She was seeking help to do what she needed to do.

LY JJ and I had different understandings of what dynamic and complexities mean. The reprt orig came from refuges and feeling pressured to accept TW which went against their service model

LY where was this coming from? What were impacts? I brought it into S&G dynamic. I have to horizon scan what's coming down - emerging trends. JJ wanted me to make ref to it but not actually mention it. She didnt want to discuss the complexity and politics of it.

LY That's my perception of it. JJ want comfortable. It was my role to advise the R on what was coming down the line re EDI. The manager is responsible for content and direction of reports. This was only report that wasnt straightforward. Was v unusual

AM U say feeling v professionally compromised re this report. Cos of her involvement?
LY No, this was normal practice. Was the content and tone of report after the motion happened. Made me feel professionallu compromised - the trigger was the motion.
LY It was now impossible to write a neutral report looking at both sides of debate after the motion

AM [new doc] The 1st para about how to work together in this complex area. Suggesting ypu hadnt raised issues before then
LY We'd had convos. It was hard to raise issues cos of her manner and seeming to want to shut things down
AM She'll say no coldness from her
LY That's not how it felt
AM After that chat, u continued w the report
LY As best I cld. Then I went off sick w eye issues

LY AT this point we were asking for info on services. I wrote a v early draft structure of report, and then went off. From May 2022 I had nothing more to do w the report
AM In an email u sent to yrself, almost 2 yrs later, u say were feeling profess compromised and how cld u write a report. Relations had broken down by this point
Yes
AM JJ felt yr own views were too prominent and she wanted a balanced reprt
LY I wasnt putting in my personal views but a range of views that happened to align w mine

AM [new doc p881] An email from JJ on 23 May: following a convo earlier that week and what y'd agreed. Re an eye issue that meant u were off sick and self certification. She says u want some contact w work to reduce isolation, and agreed screen attendance to Mon EDI mtgs and team huddles

AM So she's supporting u as yr LM

LY Yes. She was very supportive on these types of issues

AM [new doc p873] Yr email 13 May just before u went on sick leave re Adiba's complaining. U respond to Adiba listing projects that Lutfer wanted to progress and sending him ideas

AM U were present at the mtg?

LY Yes, but nothing else on the list was discussed at the mtg

AM You say we can discuss on the 16th

LY The 16th deadline wasnt agreed by me. She never told me she'd agreed a date for EDI to undertake w/out agreeing with the LM. I wldnt have agreed
to this deadline for the councillor

AM This long email from Sarah Hurden to Bev Craig. BC was council leader then

LY Yes

AM SH talks about twitter support. She mentions being shocked by transphobia since moving over to Manchester and didnt think safe for T ppl to work here

LY Yes, agree is concerning and if she'd witnessed transphobia she shld raise it

AM Bev says I'd be happy to talk about it but have u raised w James Binks or more senior?

LY Yes

AM Sarah said wld be leaving. Jill Johnson had been v helpful. Sarah had decided to progress vis employment related process

AM Sarah had concerns about transphobia

LY Has significant concerns according to email

AM JJ's WS describes a mtg with HR about Sarah's concerns and was advised to deal w informally and keep notes

LY Yes, this seems reasonable

AM You know Sarah had raised concerns (about you??)

LY Not at the time

AM In yr WS, u say [LY reading] u were spending a lot of time on twitter and in yr view and possibly becoming a bit radicalised?

LY Radicalised is an exageration. I was using X a lot more

AM U mention the algorythm and getting more GC input and feeling more compelled to respond. U became more embroiled

LY Embroiled is a good word. I was off work then

AM U say JJ raised concerns in June and yr stress levels increased and u turned to twitter due to the stress

LY It was a form of self harm looking at screens w my bad eyes. I was trying to come out of shielding as was v vulnerable. I started seeing a counsellor at end of 21 as feeling unsafe.

AM JJ alerted u to Sarah and Abida having concerns [new doc]

AM Sarah to JJ on 15 June: Sarah provides 12 pages of tweets and said was exhausted by having to deal with you. Lots of attached tweets from u under yr own name

LY Yes, my professional name

AM She's sending contents as she perceives it. U mention yr role in yr feed.

AM Sarah saying she perceives these tweets as bad en masse even if not bad individually. Sarah says ppl may not understand the impact of X posts on espec young T ppl. She's ashamed of yr views and emotionally exhausted by having to research yr views and had lost sleep over this,
and was concerned for young ppl

LY I dont agree my tweets had to be investigated.

AM She's concerned about you as a manager and refusing T awareness training

LY I didnt turn down any T awareness training but got Gendered Intelligence to do training. She didnt have to research my views but only GC views.

AM She says GC views [missed] Sarah Hurden sent email on 20 June on p905 from JJ. She sets out a no of concerns before leaving. Starts w yr strengths but areas of development - eg being dismissive of ideas and being negative about staff and others that disagree w you. Here's a whole list of complaints including you asking invasive Qs, fostering good r'ships, behaviour towards younger members and dismissing Abida's ideas. I'd suggest these require investigation
Yes, I think they cld have looked at my own health. Cld have been a convo
LY with me to scope out. They chose not to do in this way

AM We see SH's redignation letter. As u know the primary reason is the -ve attitude towards T ppl that I've seen in the council. She's one of 2 ppl who left?

Yes

AM Sighting you>

Yes

AM That isnt for a convo

LY I think so

AM Abida mentioned race discrimination. A chat?

LY That cld be the starting point

AM I'd say that wld be v unusual to be informal only route w these issues incl claims of discrimination

LY Mmm

AM There's more info from SH on 20 July on p900 where she says:

AM Maybe we could break here...

J Let's break. It's not uncommon for someone to help turning pages for you

J That might be easier. You might want to discuss this and possibly rearrange the tables. You remain under oath. We return at 2pm [sound glitching]
AM We're making good progress so certainly no more than 2 days.

COURT ADJOURNED

Tuesday 12 May 2026
Afternoon Session - Part 1

We will shortly be reporting at 2pm on the Manchester Employment Tribunal covering Lorna Young (LY) vs Manchester City Council (MCC).
LY is gender critical and Catholic and was formerly Equality Team Manager at MCC. She was dismissed from this role due to her social media content.

We're a collective of volunteer citizen journalists and are not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio above) which funds our digital & some travel costs. We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcript of proceedings.

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council

Abbrevs:
EJ or J - Employment Judge Dunlop.
LY or C - Lorna Young, the Claimant
MCC or R - Manchester City Council, the Respondent
NR - Nathan Roberts, counsel for C
AM - Aileen McColgan KC - counsel for R
JJ - Jo Jackson
BC - Councillor Bev Craig, then Leader of MCC
SH - Sarah Hurden, then employee MCC
JO AD IPH - Jenny Osborne Assistant Director, Integration and Population Health,

Cx - complaint
Ix - investigation
Sx - suspension
EA - Equality Act
EDI - equality, diversity and inclusion
DD - direct discrimination
CoA - Court of Appeal
WS - witness statement
GC - gender critical
SS - single-sex
S&G -sex & gender
LGBT - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
T - Trans or transgender
TRAs - transactivists
PSED - public sector equality duty
PCs -protected characteristics
WESC - Women and Equalities Select Committee
GRA - Gender Recognition Act
GI(T) - gender identity (theory)
TRAHR - MCC Trans Rights are Human Rights motion LGBA - LGB Alliance
SW - Stonewall
LM - line manager

Court has resumed. Timings being discussed.

AM- looking at SH's Cxs. Page 985. Email from [missed] - resignation letter. main reason is irreconcileable differences with my mananers - quoting too fast
wld you accet that wld properly raise concern in an employer.
LY - yes.

AM - Jill Johnson and JO Johnson covered too. [missed] Noted you got upset during that call.

AM - attendant monitoring review note by JJ - 14 July - at end work update note in between AMRs - I told you Sarah ahd handing in her notice.

J says too fast. AM says I'm sorry.

AM - No rush. page 996.

J -finding place.

AM - Jo refers t that phone call. raised mgt cincerns in resignations letters. I had sad I didn't want her to worry while on sick leave. [too fast]. She note you were upset.

LY - correct.

AM - afer Adiba Shah resigned she sent in an email of complaint regarding LY. Legthy doc - 4 pages. raise formal complaint re Hx and D , racial prejudices. Matters of sigificance?
LY Yes

AM - any reasonable employer would want to Ix?
LY - Yes extermely upset - I liked them both very much. I didn't see it coming.

AM JJ also told you .. both S and A said I'd been brillinat at supporting their heath and well being

AM Jo was supportive as telling you abt concerns.

LY - Mixed bag of conversations. Jo said makings of a great mgr. Not to woorry too much. Abt S&G fit. I didn't see the details.

AM age?

LY - A late 20s , S late 30s.

AM one complained abt calling them girls.

LY - just part of my northern dialiect. Call my friends and family that. Wouldn't have minded it being raised.

AM - not people you knew. Colleagues.

LY - Sense of warmth towards them.Many crits unfair. Completely happy to accept that criticism.

AM - quotes for JJ email to SH. please take time to step away from this. S was genuinely distressed.

LY - Jo considered it so.

AM - JJ preented with a distressed person complaining abt mmgt. She has to do something abt it?

LY - yes.

LY looking at a document.

AM - an OH repprt 12 July 2022 after Jo & LY call 2 June. Background - quoting - currently offwork whilst waiting for a [medical] procedure. NHS error has set behind retrn to work timescale.

AM - at that time medical condition was solely eye relted not mental health.

LY - OH - was struggling with MH earlier in year.
No mention on MH in this [OH report].

AM - 14 July note of absence monitoring JJ discussion abt candidates for specialist EDI vacancies working to you. JJ - strongest candidates - you dont want someone woke and internal candidates to minimise [missed}
Definition of woke - quality candidates [missed]

AM - you had a tendency to address things through yr own personal GC approach ?

LY - I was shocked to see this in an MMR (?). I felt I had to defed it. My work on the team and as a specialist, approach things without our personal views. [fast]

LY - I was trying to convey the important of breadth and perspectives - challenge personal views. ... I was very good at it. Ability to do that.
AM - isn't woke often a criticism of people with Progressive woth captal P view?
LY - would say that again.
AM - wld you agree using woke in usual use - I would be discriminatiing as some of thos eviews would be protected.
LY not how I used woke - a throw away comment - I meant in way said [in the docs we can't see]. Challenge yr own beliefs and prejudices. We need to provide credble advice.

LY - [missed] said you used to be an activist and now see things as a professional equality adviser. I was looking at people who could do that or go on that journey.
AM - AMR - finding place - gives reference as where you said you couldn't do more than 10 minutes.
NR gives assistance as to where the reference is on the laptop LY is using.
LY - haven't used a laptop in quite a few years...reading

AM clarifies - couldn't read emails more than 10 mins. Was this when you were spending hours scrolling twitter?
LY - describes medical issues and left eye is worse - can hold phone to eye. Laptop needs both eyes - so pain hits much earlier. Like I'm struggling today.

AM - Jo acknowledged that Lorna requested weekly catch ups suspended. Surgery first then address issues or resignations and derailed relationship with Jo. Not knowing the detail and seriousness of the complaints was affecting you.

AM - LY said if there was any complaints, there'd better be evidence.
Your approach to the complaints was really competent.

LY - in that moment I was very uset. I wasn't angry. JJ had just told me that both SH and Adipa had resigned because of me. The info re there resignations was drip fed to me.

LY - the vaguesness on a phone call and reference to the S&G report made my mind race. I'd rather not have known.

AM - Jo said she didn't want you to hear it from colleagues.
LY - Not sure who I'd have heard it from. Eye pain like having arthritis in eyes and very low. Not anger.

AM - exchange of emails with Jo end of August.
AM - JJ 26 Aug email - so sorry to hear [trpuble with eyes] pain and discomofor & assistive technology RTW date postponed. Suggest mtgs in person at home or another space. LY resonds any dates below - near home.
AM - more on assistive tech. tone is supportive.

LY - yes
AM work would provide taxis if coming into work.
LY [not sure]
AM - quotes reference travel by taxi if booked by MCC

LY - same as meetings for work - travel by taxi.
AM - high level of support.
AM - reduce screen time, trial and error. and right balance. what was that - if 6 good hours a day how to balance.
LY - difficult. Tear ducts cauterised. Over time would be able to judge those eye tolerances. Some days really bad. Some a bit better. Give it a go. and see how I got on.
LY I didn't work it out in those terms [proportion of time]. never worked it out 2 hours for that one hour for that. Very unstable time.

AM - Sarah Nurichi (?) SN was undertaking the Ix. SN emailed you on 18 Oct, taking over from JJ. Emailed proposing mtg w/c 7 Nov.

AM - you'd raised concerns of JJ being LM and Investigator - response was to remove her.

AM take LY to another doc in teh undle. Email from LY to SN setting out adjustments requested in regard to Ix process.

the bundle.

AM - Mtg postponed a week in response to request. OH report 1133 - 27 Oct - last two headings. Notes you'd attempted to return - derailed as result of IX. Off with distress. Hoping to return the next week.

AM - yr engagement with Twitter. You wouldn't use the term "radicalise". quotes ; My eyes were so sore by then and I had a headache. My twitter addiction had got me. I'd just keep scrolling. Manifested in some quite opinionated GC posts.
AM - top page 1139 you say - phaased return to work - 2-3 hours a day. Might not manage iit if a bad day with eyes.
3 Nov - SN invtes you to Ix mtg.

AM - quotes invitation to 22 Nov mtg - 18 days after the invitation letter. SN attaches the Cxs from SH and Adiba.

AM - quotes - some elements redacted as not relevant to Ix. You complain at page 187 of WS - or maybe you don't complain. You say attached were partially redacted compaints. [too fast - re pages length]. I was given no info abt how the Cxs fell between each category eg personal data, comments viewed discriminatory.

AM - contincues by quoting SN's email. At no point did you ask to have those elements defined.

LY - I asked if things could be broken down, and allegations revisited. I was overwhelmed when I got 100 allegations. I couldn't think straight. I didn't ask for it in those terms. I shd have had it in those terms.

AM - you had 14 pages with reactions to raed in 18 days. Not a lot.

LY - for someone with my condition - yes a lot. I had to look at a lot of material on my computer to understand what they [talking abt] - when were wnad what were they talking abt.

LY - All my emails. It was overwhelming and too much.

AM - you asked for emails and tweets to be sent. Am I right you'd read it all within hours.

LY - I skim read and remember zeroing in on an ref to an email I cldn't read

AM [missed] 4 page response - background - only last 2 paras set out on emotional response - no detail. Not a criticism.

LY - can't remember my thoughts. In a bad way. I thought important that SN understood what I had been dealing with. Used up my eye tolerance. I wanted her to understand.

LY - not based on advice.

AM - "My eye conditon has flared up. working 7 hours a day. 100 allegations. Eyes need to calm down" Almost finished SH's allegations.

LY - clarifies - reading not my response

AM - not saying you'd nearly finished yr response

LY _ started with Sarah's

AM - quotes "slow down Ix". that's what happened.

LY - not really. What i didn't get is OK these are the topics and we'll do it like this. Not broken down for me.

LY - needed something more concrete to pick up on.

J - makes a short break. She reminds LY of her warning not to discuss case with anyone.

Thank you very much JaneDoeKeepsReceipts.
This is an interesting case, it seems to have a lot of twists and turns, race, disability, job seniority, age and posting on X all in the mix here as well as religious and GC beliefs..

Afternoon session 2
Tuesday 12 May 2026

We will continue with the second part of this afternoon's hearing after a break.

We've rejoined.
AM - paras 41 of SN's WS, she talks abt emails recd. She was out of office and picked up on 22 Nov. Trib will hear that out of offcie included 17 Nov. Came back day you met with her. You will have recd an out of office.
LY I don't recall that.

AM - quotes from LY 's email to SN re scope of Ix. Another email 21/11 and make a correction to something abt scope. Now , well, I'm telling you and Miss N will tell you she wasn't in office until 22 NOv. So not surprisng o substaive response is it?
LY (missed)

AM - 22 Nov initail mtg.
LY - can't remember it described as initial. I thought it might cover email I sent on 21 Nov.

AM - You say SN replied on 22 Nov, quotes - thanks for msgs recd on my return - complex , don't invisage covered in one meeting. Will ensure you will have time to respond in full?
LY yes but i was asked to respond to allegation in 1st mtg. i was in the dark

AM - clear more meetinsg after 22 Nov. You respodned with lots of info.
LY (missed) I didn't really get uch of a response . I did some verbally.

AM - para 240 yr WS - 22 Nov 22, attended an Ix mth with SN, covered only a small section of the Cxs. A Cx that it hadn't covered more. That was what you'd asked for bit by bit.

LY I'd actually asked for teh scope of teh IX to reduced and amended. Didn't happen so cld only cover a small amount at first mtg.

AM - look at request for reduction in scope - a point corrected in yr email.
LY reading.
AM - you say scope of Ix is disproportionate
LY - yes

AM - do you take the view it's disproportionate because meployees have eft.
LY - contacted ACAS - they said empployers don't have to.

AM - I don't consider A's direct disscrimination complaint sufficent to a formal Ix. It's just an assertion. on what basis wold it be pproper for council to ignore [it]?
LY says - require proof of detriment. paid £5k more.

AM doesn't meed A wasn't discriminated against.
LY couldn't see any in terms of pay or training.

AM - Disc on basis of race on basis that might have been constructive dismissal.
LY I am not a legal expert . I was writing what I udnerstood.

AM - because employed by MCC for a long time, obligations twoards you, not ex employees. No detriment as promoted - so shdn't formal Ix.
LY - yes based on ACAS adviser advice - obligation to LY not ex employees.

AM - the you say - para 3 consider Appendix 3 an infringement of Art 9 & 10 rigts - are yous aying emp can't Ix social media posts?
LY - I'm sayinsg what I say there [in WS]. Showing my catholic beliefs. MyProtected beliefs (PBs).

AM missed.
LY ... Considered it self evident. Shd have been struck out. missed. Sh said [something abt not fit to be an EDI mgr]

NR - intervenes - not fair summary of what SHH said.

AM - quotes SH - whilst I understand [GC beliefs may be expressed] expressed in such a public way and contrary to council own work is unprofessional.
LY - did not meet the threshold.

I really struggle how the council got to gross misconduct without the detailed Ix.
AM - then you say at para 240 Ix mtg - and then you sent a number of emails to SN. Did not attend subsequent mtgs.
LY because of ill health.

AM - 6 emails sent on 24 NOv between 12.03pm and 7.33pm
AM - you forward email correspondance of Adiba pay issue. Why?

LY This was sending to refute allegation {missed]
She was saying her continuity of staying terms didn't happen. I didn't recall her pay being affected but I do recall HR colleagues and I worked to resolve it.

LY - re Sarah and holidays - not added to system correctly. I said just send me a request in writing and I honoured them. I agreed dates for a future year to align with husband's holidays, and A's marriage.

AM - nothing here abt you involved.
LY - I was. A phone call to HR as I was involved in HR earlier. Jo helped out. I absolutely did [get involved to get it sorted],

AM emails /evidence shows nothing abt yr involvement

AM - 3 days after initial mtg, email re follow up mtg. quotes - I'll review emails in detail and offers dates, shares questions that will be raised. Deat with the issue abt [managing the process]

LY if it had happened but I never got the questions.
AM - beacuse there weren;t any furure mtgs.

LY - [missed]

AM at that point everything else had fallen away.

LY Not forever.
AM & LY [unclear]

AM - SN queried avilabilityfor future mtg.

LY I can do Monday or Tuesday.

AM Union rep not available to do dates. SN looking at alt dates. Not acceotable too union rep.

AM - SN asked if anyone could switch out with Jane TU rep.

LY - chest infection. Sn wishes best in terms of recovery. back at work 4 Jan. % Jan - SN says HR will sort out.

AM 23 Nov - SN heard from SH.
Quotes SH email

Withim my Cx, I talked abt comments that LY made on her Twitter, I have reason to believe this is her second account GallwayGirl.

Info matches with LY info shared publicly. I still wanted to raise, as if it is her, I cannot stress how important this for LGBT people, her opinions appear quite extreme.

Wuld you consider the council needed to address it?

LY in terms of how SH phrased it, yes.

AM referred to internal audit as to whether or not this was yr account. SN not aware until 2 Jan as on break.

Missed. Reference to Barry Young's posts.
missed.

AM - you tried to retract an email 7 Jan to Stuart [missed] 8 hours later.
Anodyne response. he doesn't take umbridge to yr comments.

AM on 13 Jan - written Cx from Alfie Hewitt (?) while you were on leave.

AM 2022. Myself SH and Aiba were told abt a secret Twitter account - light hearted fun.

LY He shdn't have been. I dispute his account. I only had one account then. {missed ] followed me on the galway account.

LY I had the idea of setting a second accoun in my own name. So I set it and followed collegaues. And I asked [missed] to stop following ,e on Gg account & follow me on LY

LY I told [name missed] that she might want to think abt doing teh same having a second prof account. She said she'd do that.
Alfie wanted to know what I thought abt Elon Musk. Sequed into him saying never used Twitter. Michelle said she did.

LY - I said I had a second account I keep very private.

Alfie and Michelle kept yeasing me that they'd track em down & will find me. So I think that's what he means.

LY - the way Alfie framed it [confesses to a secret accounto voice personal opinions] is leading.

AM - if it's an account whereyu blockmpeople nand ony tell one person, isn't it secret.

LY _ I wanted personal and professional account. I started to block colleagues c July 2022.

LY - if you want to engage - easier to do blocking as protected accounts can't engage.

AM - Alfie discusses how everyone looks to see what yr private account was.

LY what i strongly believ happend at some point safya told SH or Adiba abt the name of teh galwaygirl account, not realising.

LY - SH and Adiba passed on too Alfie - I think deliverate. them [missed} and michelle started looking at it. And {missed} put a message on twitter.

AM - Alfie quoted yr tweet dont give a two fucks abt yr pronouns.

LY - that wld have taken place at 2am. A Rt. I'm not proud of that one. I wouldn't do that now. The whole of the tweet was abt GC.

AM would you accept that would have an effect on the EDI team and you were aware that Michelle had worked with Mermaids?
Missed.

LY I knew she worked for Mermaids. I thought Michelle was very competent. [missed something abt atking LY's old role in disability]

LY - I was sorry she was so upset Had I been given the opportunity of mediation....[missed]. She shouldn't have been told by Sarah what my account was -... Sarah's campaign.

Court has risen. We'll return at 9.30am tomorow morning (subject to the tribunal, counsel and LY getting through security promptly) when LY's evidence will continue.

Manchester is a left wing council. Somebody with Lorna Youngs beliefs was never going to fit in.

Please consider signing up to Tribunal Tweet's substack to fund their incredible work

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council

Wednesday 13 May 2026

Morning session part 1

This is Day 2, morning session, of Lorna Young (LY) v Manchester City Council (MCC), held at Manchester Employment Tribunal. We expect to begin at 9.30.

LY is gender critical and Catholic and was formerly Equality Team Manager at MCC. She was dismissed from this role, including for her social media content.
More background information on the case, our earlier coverage, and press articles can be found on our Substack:

We are a collective of volunteer citizen journalists and are not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio above) which funds our digital and some travel costs.
We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcript of proceedings.

Abbrevs:
EJ or J - Employment Judge Dunlop.
LY or C - Lorna Young, the Claimant
MCC or R - Manchester City Council, the Respondent
NR - Nathan Roberts, counsel for C
AM - Aileen McColgan KC - counsel for R
JJ - Jo Jackson
BC - Councillor Bev Craig, then Leader of MCC
SH - Sarah Hurden, then employee MCC
JO AD IPH - Jenny Osborne Assistant Director, Integration and Population Health

Cx - complaint
Ix - investigation
Sx - suspension
EA - Equality Act
EDI - equality, diversity and inclusion
DD - direct discrimination
CoA - Court of Appeal
WS - witness statement
GC - gender critical
SS - single-sex
S&G -sex & gender
LGBT - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
T - Trans or transgender
TRAs - transactivists
PSED - public sector equality duty
PCs -protected characteristics
WESC - Women and Equalities Select Committee
GRA - Gender Recognition Act
GI(T) - gender identity (theory)
TRAHR - MCC Trans Rights are Human Rights motion
LGBA - LGB Alliance
SW - Stonewall
LM - line manager

We are in the room. Discussion between J and AM

AM Not conceded complaints were discriminatory.

J Some were emails which seem unlikely to be indispose.

J Contrasting paras where R admits was discriminatory. Then primary q c what happened - but some acts not in dispute.

J Eg sending C an email - confused as to why there is a dispute c that.

AM I sought to remove acts not in play - such as Catholic beliefs and disability not in dispute. I am happy to do this over course of evening. I can see what further admissions can be made re these matters

J It's a complex case. Don't want to lose sight of whole - would be good to narrow things which are in dispute.

AM I am happy to scrutinise this overnight, rather than just what R has already conceded.

J Overnight or over a couple of days - would be helpful.

J A feature of this case seems to be how ix is presented to C. Is R saying not PCP cos not a PCP, or not because of how R acted.

NR Air conditioning is on - could it go off?

J Yes
[J is difficult to hear - apologies]

NR We have sent clean version of doc to your clerk.

AM Flag I want to have a recording by C played

J How long?

AM About 10 mins. C said mtg events amounted to harassment. It's important.

AR [Agrees]

J How played?

AM On my laptop, if loud enough.

J if not, could share to someone here.

AM It's in your electronic bundle.

NR It's been uploaded as a file, not in PDF

J So I will be able to replay it. May have other options.