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.

NR Initial investigator.
JJ wouldn't have analysed in detail.
JJ things happened out of order.

NR you produced a summary doc of Cxs?
JJ - ref in bundle?

NR - remember this doc?
JJ - doc Sarah sent to me that she compiled.

NR don't think that can be right
NR - ref in bundle - some sort of decision by you.
JJ yes - def made that decision abt what was not being taken forward. So not just SH authorship. Joint Doc?
JJ sorry - such a long time ago. A copy and paste of info submitted.

NR scope?
JJ yes.

NR - you kept ashamed in scope - far from challenging it.
JJ yes impact is something we had to include.

NR policy you have to include everything offensive someone else has said?
JJ - answer difficult to hear.

NR Reference to C's GC beliefs not included in scope - incidence 5 . Someone has decided some tweets included and some not.
JJ don't recall making decision.

NR all tweets except for one. Putting to you you made formal decn.
Jj don't recall. may have made an error from one doc to anither

NR - what's missing the bit that refers to the C's GC beliefs.
JJ - reads out loud. I'd have to go through full doc. Don't recall removing full paragraph.

NR - you share the trans motion. Tell her to hold you to account and are effectively doing her bidding.
JJ - looks at the refs in bundle.
Yes.

NR as general theme through treatment of C, you wre behaving on a way that enabled Miss H to hold you to account?
JJ in what way?

NR - you regarded her as brave, hold to account.
JJ - offering constructive way to raise her concerns , very upset. Trying to be supportive.

NR are you aware email wasn't original disclosed. £ rounds of disclosure before disclosed?
JJ No

Nr you didn't raise any issues abt her behaviour until someone else raised it with you. C went on sick leave and concerned abt isolation and you agreed she cld attend meetings as company. Stopped in June. Complaints ramped up after April and you thought cld be managed informally.
JJ - my preferred approach.

NR - Miss Hurden had different ideas. How did you know abt 19 May conversation>
JJ I went back and checked my chats and things. that's how - wasn't sure of dates.

NR - Not disclosed.
JJ wouldn't have come up in my search.

NR - Miss Hurden has gone to head of council. Did you know abt this?
JJ No.

NR - Miss Craig says why me in polite terms. I've now spoken to JJ - incredibly supportive and helpful. So some conversation.
JJ implied but I can't recall that convo.
discussion on which doc between NR and AM

NR - SH resigns 21 June. Written - my prime reason towards trans people despite the motion - motion highly relevant to SH's Cx.
NR Miss Soltan complained same day. Coincidenec?
JJ No.
They had a conversation.

NR coordinated. They copied each other in to some correspondence. {Soltan's] expert view on how C's view offends. Speaking to each other regularly abt their respective Cxs.
JJ accepts spoke to each other.

NR clearly coordinating Cxs?
JJ - yes clearly coordinating.

NR - Sarah Hurden subsequent written complaint - absolutely ballooned. [refs to docs in bundle we can't see] and Miss Soltan's complaint - word for word the same.
JJ Yes

NR Did it ever occur to you that they were trying to stitch up the C?
JJ No.

NR - no record of response to their resignation letters?
JJ - don't recall if emailed or spoke.

NR no record.
JJ wouldn't have come up on search.
J my decision to start an Ix.

NR - unusual number of phone calls
missed
JJ - notify HR.

NR A disciplinary?
JJ - a dispute resolution or second part. i challenged Sarah. I said not appropriate dsicrimation. Cx was first told disciplinary.
Gross misconduct.
JJ it was under initial scope no decision on process [when JJ Ix-ing]

NR - not a Dx ?Who determined it wld be a disciplinary process?
JJ I don't know.

NR No documents to help us work out where the decision was made.

The Judge is hard to hear - she tells JJ that if as a result of today "you think you have documents that should be disclosed" she should do so.

[Note: The witness may not talk to MCC's legal team over night. She must not discuss her evidence with anyone.]

The court rises and will return at 10am tomorrow morning.

Today we shall be tweeting from day 5 of the Employment Tribunal case brought by Lorna Young against her former employer Manchester City Council.

Ms Young 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.
She is claiming:
(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.
Abbreviations:

LY or C - Lorna Young, the Claimant
NR - Nathan Roberts, counsel for C

MCC or R - Manchester City Council, the Respondent
Aileen McColgan KC - counsel for R
We anticipate a 10am start, with NR continuing his cross-examination of MCC witness Jo Johnson (JJ).
.

[The livestream has started, and the hearing will begin shortly]

AM: [Has emailed the additional disclosure docs to all parties. J is speaking but not audible]
AM: No other matters before we start

J: [again not audible]
[was a discussion about whether witnesses should use paper bundles or electronic versions - I think it's agreed all round that each can choose which works best for him/her]

[JJ is being shown how to use electronic bundle versions on a court laptop]

NR: Y'day we were looking at how the investigation started but had not looked at any docs. Am going to read yr response to the resignations -
[background noise interruption from a remote observer]

NH: [reading] JJ says v sorry re the resignation, esp about the reasons for it - "reasons" were the trans issues, yes? p987
JJ [reads] I stress "primary"

NR: The email your are responding to only says one reason, the trans issue.
NR: you say there will be an IX. So at this time your are IX officer?
JJ: It's normal for the line manager [cannot hear what she is saying]

NR: Why did you think it OK for you to be IX officer
JJ: [I cannot hear what she is saying]

NR: SH in reply says, will be happy to help any IX, inc after having left, says MCC shd take advice from a LGBT org eg Stonewall. Says v important re MCC mission - which means the TWAW motion?
JJ: Yes

NR: Your WS, 27. You say that on 27/6 that you'd added s'thing to file re "potential" IX. But "potential" is new - you [other ref] simply say "IX". You said in email definitely an IX. So why 'potential' in WS?
JJ: I think it is a nuance about scoping - early stages of an IX you don't know where it will go.

NR: Am asking bcs after this date you told the C there was no formal process, on 9/8. Will come back to this when we reach it in the chronology.

NR: Your WS, 31. You say on 23/6 you contacted Paula re the 2 resignations, was that an email?
JJ: Can't recall - might have been a teams call.

NR: Where did you get that knowledge from?
JJ: Or cd have been a teams chat

NR: We have not had any chats disclosed at all, from the R. No chat msgs at all, other than by C. Do you accept you have disclosed none at all?
JJ: Wd have to go back to look.

NR: You must be referring to a doc of some kind?

NR: Your WS 34. You say you approached ppl to see if they wanted to make formal complaint, and then IX formally started, but none of this correspondence has been disclosed, you accept?
JJ: [an explanation, cannot hear]

NR: We can see from the emails that you did not ask if they wanted IX, you just told them there wd be one. Emails only disclosed this morning. You accept?
JJ: No I asked SH and A if they wanted to.

NR: But we don't have those emails.

NR: You started IX bcs you think it's wrong to be GC and work in EDI. You accept?
JJ: No.
JJ: When I [I'm so sorry, I cannot hear the witness at all clearly]

NR: Y'day we looked at doc, summary of complaint, at what you removed, one was SH list of witnesses
JJ: Can't recall if the list came later.

NR: We don't have any emails re that doc showing who sent it when to who. Nothing at all.

NR: SH did provide a list of witnesses at some point
JJ: Yes

NR: And included you
JJ: Can't remember when I found that out but yes.

NR: See p916 for example. SH complaint about not knowing dress code. Serious allegation?
JJ: [I think says no]

NR: It was sent to the C as an allegation. You are listed variously in this document.
JJ: [acknowledges]

NR: You say to SH lots of things about making the TWAW motion a reality etc, and SH puts you as witness, do you agree that your first instinct was right that you sould not be IX officer?
JJ: [I think agrees]

NR: Who made the decision to appoint you?
JJ: [I think says was HR]

NR: You were removed only bcs C complained? Not bcs C knew all this but bcs relationship with you had broken down?
JJ: Yes

NR: July 2021 - SH sent you a long list of C's supposed transgressions re the trans issue. [ref 1016]. Encouraging you to see as misconduct issues.
JJ: I think as capability.

NR: Capability or conduct are the usual choices?
JJ: [elaborates on the distinction I think]

NR: The last email re this is headed 'misconduct' isn't it. [ref 886]
JJ: Yes but I don't think I was thinking 'misconduct' at this time.

NR: SH had submitted a formal complaint by this point, so had AS [gives refs] [JJ reads]
JJ: Yes

NR So at 19/7, you have formal complaints from AS and SH, and IX has formally started
JJ: Agrees

NR: Your WS, 45. Do you agree that this para is based on a doc we have not seen? There is no page reference?
JJ: Agree

NR: [ref 1021 et seq] says C has told you that not knowing any details, other than fact of resignations and mention of her, was causing her stress. C has given evidence she was told complaints might be submitted, do you remember saying "might"
[cannot hear JJ response]

NR: But we know complaints had been submitted
JJ: [long response]

NR: Is it not a simpler response that you lied to the C in that meeting?
JJ: Not true.

NR: [ref 1042] Sept AMR - you don't refer to the complaints at all?
JJ [reads and agrees]

NR: [ref 1044] Updates about new joiners (3 inc Barry Young), also says planned that C wd begin staged return on 19/9, yes?
JJ: Yes

NR: You have said AS withdrew her complaint. I don't think that's right - see [ref] - you thank her for formal complaint and ask for more info, and we also know you were going in June to proceed with IX whether or not they complained?

NR: EG you say to AS that once IX officer appointed they wd ask to speak to her, but it would be entirely up to AS if she wanted to participate? IX wd continue regardless?
JJ: [is answering but cannot hear]

NR: You asked for more info but AS v slow to provide? But AS did not withdraw complaint, do you accept that?
JJ: [reading]
JJ: I say here that I want to check ...

NR: When was that?
JJ: Can't recall - somewhere around then

NR: You have conv. with AS 20/9 - p 1007. Follow up to phone call same day. We've had no evidence of that phone call, no witness evidence. Not in your WS?
JJ: I wouldn't have put every phone call down.

NR [ref 1046]. Email to you re C RtW mtg and the complaints against her - cd you read the para.
[JJ reads]

NR: Is it right that the first time you told C re IX and complaints was this meeting?
JJ: We did discuss on 9/8 that concerns had been raised and C asked if grievance submitted, I don't think the RtW convo was a surprise.

NR: C evidence is that she'd been told there might be, but was told at RtW that there in fact were complaints, yes?
NR: The return was online, and you told C she could not line-manage the team?
[JJ replies at length]

NR: I know you've given that reason often, but if you look at 1022, can you see where it says LY currently on phased return, & you have decided she won't be managing the staff partly because of the IX?
JJ: Yes, HR advice bcs IX of serious matters, standard practice

NR: You haven't put HR advice in your WS
JJ: Oversight

NR: Who gave you the advice?
JJ: [missed, I think no name given]

NR: It's serious to take management responsibilities off them isn't it?
JJ: [differentiating between various management functions, some C retained some not. I think]

NR: C was still allowed contact with the team, just not to manage.
JJ: [repeats this was standard, advice]

NR: I don't have any HR person to ask about this, you accept that?
JJ: Agree

NR: This is undermining C in front of several new team members
JJ: [missed]

NR: Did it undermine C when you took her out of the team altogether?
JJ: Absolutely not [longer explanation, can't hear]
[long speech, I think ends up saying 'it was safeguarding']

NR: I asked if it was undermining her.
JJ: [lists all the things C was still doing in her role]. Not removed from the team, just asked not to have contact with the ppl in the team.

NR: [ref 1140]
NR: C went off sick for c 6 weeks, then back in Nov 2022. We have another AMR here. Says Jo and Lorna agreed to transition. But you didn't tell her she would be removed for duration of the IX?

NR: You've said there were 2 reasons - 1 being C own wellbeing, 2 the seriousness of allegations, you didn't tell C about 2 did you?
JJ: Had had NR advice C shd not manage team bcs serious allegations.

NR: [ref p1144]
NR: Email from Jane Spinks your manager?
JJ: Yes

NR: Says re staying off line management bcs IX.
NR: C replies "but JJ told me Nov AMR that line management wd transition back to me" told linked to staged return not IX?
JJ I think poorly worded.

NR: Do you accept what Mr Binks says is untrue?
JJ: No

NR: And we don't have any of the documents he based decision on.
NR: C then raises issue of you being IX officer [ref, and your WS 52]
NR: You say you contacted Tracy H later that day to progress this.
JJ: yes

NR: [ref]
NR: You'd already interviewed SH?
JJ: Yes

NR: You say you attach evidence pack. Has not been disclosed. What was in it?
JJ: [missed]

NR: You had 2 mtgs with Sarah Naricci. You are aware that Sarah Hewitt raised further complaints re the GalwayGirl acocunt in December?
JJ: [missed]

NR: SN interviewed all the EDI team members? Inc ppl C had never met?
JJ: Not part of IX by then so didn't know who.

NR: All the team members mentioned a meeting with you in Jan 2023?
JJ: Wouldn't know

NR: For example if we look at Alfie Hewett's evidence?
JJ: Alfie told me was really upset, so I asked for a timeline, 11/12 Jan I think

NR: The only thing we have on this is AH statement. No emails attaching it, nothing.

NR: And you don't mention it in your WS.
JJ: [says again about asking for timeline]

NR: Says here, Jo organised mtg for ppl to raise concerns, mention of Mermaids charity.
NR: AH is framing as mtg for staff concerns.
JJ: Well-being check for staff, opportunity to talk about it.

[JJ talking about HR processes I think]

[and about holding views being fine, but not moving into harassment]

NR: Was it not undermining to hold a meeting where people C had never met cd talk about her?
JJ: [disagrees]

J: Asks re timing - NR says yes has more, break after a couple more Qs pls

NR: [ref] AMR in February. Says C felt EDI team were talking about her negatively and she was feeling bullied, you say, team were not talking about here tho aware of an issue. Not true was it?
JJ: Were not talking about her negatively [missed]

NR: Happy to stop there for break

Friday 15 May 2026
Morning session part 2

This is part 2 of the morning session of day 5 in the case at employment tribunal brought by Lorna Young against Manchester City Council. Part 1 of today's hearing is here

The court is taking a short break, after which cross-examination of the witness Jo Johnston - Head of Reform & Innovation at MCC) will continue.
[Hearing is beginning - J is asking JJ to speak into microphone]

NR: WS on p60 para 264. [JJ reads]

NR: Do you take issue with any of that as incorrect?
JJ: Yes I don't think I said "another complaint" I think I said "concern".
JJ: Wd not have said HR decided - they advise, don't decide.
JJ: I did say I was v concerned about C wellbeing and that decision partly based on concern for her.

NR: C told you she regarded it as punishment.
JJ: I can't recall if she said that at the time

NR: We have not had any disclosure of HR advice have we.
JJ: [agrees]

NR: You have said nothing in your WS about this decision.
NR: Who did you take HR advice from on this.
JJ: [2 names]

NR: You were not IX officer, how were you best person to make the decision?
JJ: HR advice -

NR: They told you about the IX?
JJ: No

NR: Was it HR decision?
JJ: No they give advice, not decisions.

J: [asks for clarity]

JJ: Lots of strands - I had the HR advice, had consideration of the team, so, I decided shd be no contact in case of any unfortunate comment for example.

NR: [ref] this is the MCC standards for equality data collection?
JJ: yes

NR: Says MCC must, by PSED, advance equality and that's why collecting the data.

NR: And you know PSED is part of EA2010
JJ: Yes

NR [ref] email to Michelle & Barry, says b4 sick leave I was involved in data stanards, asking if there's any new docs for C to view. What do you think of BY reply?
JJ: It's short and I don't think any attachments

NR: Appropriate way of responding to line manager?
JJ: We are quite informal - I think it's OK.

NR: [ref] He knew about the IX?
JJ: I don't know

NR: Had been at the meeting.
NR: This is Nov, AH interview had been 19/10.

NR: This draft of email re the doc we were just looking at, you are CC'd, email is 6 Jan, asks you if you think there's anything unprofessional about an email from the claimant.
[JJ is reading]
JJ: It seems fine

NR: We know C had conv with BY the same day on the same subject, we don't have any evidence from BY on it, but he subsequently said [ref] in his IX mtg, "in addition to the call".

NR: Do you accept that this broadly confirms what C had said to BY? He told you about it.
JJ: We had convo about it and I asked him to put in an email.

NR: BY had been companion to AH but you didn't know that?
JJ: No

NR: C barely knew BY?
JJ: I think they'd met a few times

NR: But she had not worked with him, hardly at all
JJ: No

NR: C does not know at this point that all the team are using whatsapp to share her tweets?
JJ: This is January? I don't know what C knew.
JJ: [drowned out by background noise]

NR: [ref] disclosure of whatsapp messages, can you see what it says at the bottom - EDI whatsapp chat.
JJ: There is a glitch here - hang on

NR: Yes C also noticed that, but pls read the chat there.
NR: Everyone appears to have lost their phone and can't find the chat, any comments on that?
JJ: I wasn't involved, wouldn't know.

NR [ref 1360] This is tweet BY "liked" Dec 2022, says "gender crit cult". [ref 1362] BY "likes" tweet saying "gender critical losers". Was that your understanding of BY views - that GC are "losers"
JJ: We never discussed

NR: There is a whatsapp group discussing, BY has the views we've seen, do you think he developed a view of the C before even working with her?
JJ: [too fast]

NR: [ref] email to you. I don't accept what he says be we can agree he sent the email?
JJ: Yes

NR: He says C suggested that view that 'sex is assigned at birth' but that that is wrong bcs GCs don't talk of 'assigned', that is GI theory.

NR: My point is that BY is not reporting accurately.
JJ: C had volunteered - I never asked - that not GC, so this is a subtlety I just can't comment on.

NR: When you read "so called gender critical beliefs" what did you understand by that? It's a smear isn't it?
JJ: I think 'smear' is too strong - a caveat maybe.

NR: BY says C told him she wd be working with him on the sex and gender report to make sure of balance, is that unprofessional?
JJ: No

NR: If we look at BY IX interview. Mentions C asking about use of word "queer" and asking my opinion but not relevant.
NR: We can see ref to "queer" in the document. You know "queer" is not in the EA?
JJ: Yes

NR: Deeply offensive to many gay ppl?
JJ: Yes but also, reclaimed by many.

NR: But you accept that some find it v offensive?
JJ: Yes

NR: It is entirely appropriate for C as team manager to ask about the use of the word? Clearly relevant?
JJ: If in that context then yes.

NR: You decided answer was to set up a mediated conversation LY and BY?
JJ: Yes to have a 3rd party to navigate.

NR: C denied being GC didn't she?
JJ: She volunteered, I never asked.

NR: You never said it was quite OK to be GC?
JJ: {missed]

NR: Culture there that it was not OK to be GC? Ppl afraid to say they were?
JJ: -

NR: I mean at that time, not now.
JJ [missed}

NR: Am putting that in the EDI team at this time, culture of having to keep being GC secret
JJ: Disagrees

NR: At this time you had started IX re SH complaint that C is GC
JJ: That's not what the complaint actually said really.

NR: We looked at this y'day. Won't rehash.
NR: Sharmila Kar told that GC shd not be mentioned in the Sex & Gender report.
JJ: My understanding is that the report sort of developed over time into more of a LGBT report. I think C didn't agree with that.

NR: You told C not to get involved with the report.
[asks 3 times]
JJ: No recollection of that.

NR: [ref] your email to BY says you have stressed to Lorna that she should not get involved in the S&G report.
JJ: OK

NR: Do you accept that in the EDI dept a culture had developed that you cannot be GC and work in EDI?
JJ: No

NR: Do you accept that got worse after the council motion
JJ: Don't accept.

NR: Did you contribute to that culture yourself?
JJ: No

NR: No further Qs

AM [re=exam]

AM [ref] email to SH June 2022. You see the time? 22.57. Now see [ref] email from SH - time is 16.49

AM: SH alludes to C transphobic but says won't address here. How do you characterise these concerns?
JJ: Lots of bullets about development - re LY line management.

AM: NR suggested there's only 1 doc re how you spoke to SH. Can you look at [ref]
JJ: This is scoping interview with SH re the complaints

AM: [missed, but point is something that is not in the email]
JJ: TBH I can'trecall.

AM: NR took you to correspondence between you and AS [ref 1012] - AS complaint. Was there any other emails you meant when you said she had withdrawn complaint?
JJ: I think she asked me orally not to proceed and I emailed to confirm.

AM: Later in that chain.
AM: You were asked about Jan mtg, did you make a note of that?
JJ: Yes

AM: And in bundle
JJ: Yes

NR: Can I ask about this? We have an agenda, but not a report.

J: Releases witness

J: what about timing?

AM: NR and I wd both like to request a case management discussion.

[This begins - it's not public. We don't know exactly how long this break will be but I think AM said 'not very long' just before the stream stopped]

[BREAK]

The Judge has just told us that as a result of the case management discussion they are going to take the lunch break now, and the session is finished for now.

[LUNCH]

Friday 15 May 2025
Afternoon session

This afternoon's session is predicted to begin at 2pm.
We are reporting from Day 5 of the Employment Tribunal case brought by Lorna Young against her former employer Manchester City Council.

Ms Young 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.

She is claiming:
(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.

Abbreviations:
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

Waiting for 2pm session to begin

Witness Hella Monroy - Dominguez HR officer is taking oath.

NR please go to bundle.
This is a document you drafted?
HMD yes

NR To whom did you send it? We see an email but other than that we have no disclosure as to who you advised?
HMD yes
If not in the bundle then there wouldn’t be. I looked through all my emails.

NR what’s odd …p1551 this was disclosed as part of the investigation pack?
HMD yes

AM not sure the witness would know

NR we were told disclosure was done by witnesses themselves as part of the pack

J if you know otherwise then tell us

HMD (agrees)

NR do you remember the main report?
HMD to Jenny Osborne yes.

NR a lot of opinions eg ‘this content is offensive’ were these your opinions?
HMD no

NR opinions of Sarah Narici
HMD that’s what I copied from her draft report yes

NR did you apply your mind to whether that was reasonable?
HMD I was not part of the investigation so it was a lift

NR this line ‘the council now faces an untenable position’ that’s your line?
HMD yes

NR ‘it is felt these views are not compatible with an officer appointed to do EDI’ Do you accept that’s a statement of a conclusion?

NR not a case to answer but a conclusion. ‘Not compatible with the role’ that’s a conclusion isn’t it?
HMD it’s a summary

NR ‘furthermore the social media posts don’t align with values’
HMD yes the values of the council

NR did you apply your mind or did you just copy and paste?
HMD Gosh a couple of years ago so I don’t know

J were are you applying your view or copying ?
HMD it was facts, things to be considered, the view of the organisation

NR no further questions

Next witness is Alice Rimmer.
Taking oath

NR can you tell me how many and who advised on C matters from 2022?
AR my involvement came 2023 onwards not sure

NR who in HR ?
AR (lists several - sound not good apols)
AR complex case I don’t usually get involved (inaudible)

J slow down please

NR two emails. Other than this email and attachment we have no disclosure of any advice you gave do you accept that?
AR we’d obviously involve the HR people on our side

NR we don’t have any advice from you. Are you aware this was only disclosed after my solicitor spotted a reference to it.

Are you aware the R tried to withdraw the document and say it was legally privileged?
AR Not sure what actions taken

NR a letter sent 8 June ‘we considered circumstances and the investigating officer will consider social media posts.’ She C was told she’d get a copy of the report.
AR aware at time but can’t recall in bundle

NR you give a recalled meeting to August 23 Sharmila Kar. We don’t have anything till document on p 1560
NR we know from Ms Narici she was asked to only focus on GalwayGirl tweets
NR that investigation was focused on those.
AR appears to be correct yes

NR No disclosure of anything till letter sent to claimant ‘We now ask you to a meeting to consider employment, including social media, complaints made by team’ and other matters. Do you agree this is a substantial change of course?
AR (inaudible’

NR changes the process to a disciplinary yes?
AR yes

NR if we go to Ms Kar statement, para 49, she gives no evidence at all for the reasoning and refers to it as the council’s decision. Who was the decision maker?
AR the same people meeting in August, myself Noah (sp?), legal, I don’t recall one decision maker

NR was it a joint decision between Ms Kar and Director of Public Health AR David Regan.

NR I don’t think we’ve seen his name in any document ever. Did you give any advice on appropriateness of this decision?
AR (doesn’t appear to recall)

NR are you aware C Had struggled under the weight of the allegations made against her?
AR in all the things I’ve heard I had an awareness, but not to the degree I know now

NR so you wrote a briefing document to the dismissing officer without any documents in front of you. You are under oath. Are you saying it was all based on oral conversations?
AR I would have had a document.

NR so there are documents you’ve not disclosed to us?
AR I will check but I can’t recall.

NR you say in your witness statements you sent an email. Was there a document attached?
AR can’t recall

NR in this letter you say you’ve abandoned but you are still framing it - was it your decision to abandon the allegations other than tweets?
AR I’m unable to recall who made the decision in relation to management allegations

NR you’ve not given any evidence about change in position
AR no

NR do you accept the messages C was receiving from R and yourself were confusing?
AR (unclear)

NR did you draft this email from Ms Kar?
AR I don’t know

NR did you draft some emails for others in this case?
AR I did

NR do you accept C understood she was dismissed for tweets on GalwayGirl account?
I’m focusing on the outcome.

AR it was much more complex.
NR what else was she dismissed for?

AR wasn’t straightforward it was also conduct and absence.
NR but she wasn’t dismissed for absence…A clear understanding from the letter sent to C.

J there’s a distinction isn’t there between things in background context and reason?

AR (unclear)

NR with your HR experience would you agree it’s clear this is a misconduct dismissal?
AR (unclear)

NR letter - if it was dealt with under policy it would be unfair.
AR we were not able to speak to claimant and claimant doctor (unclear) all those things collectively had to be considered.

NR do you know what advice Ms Osborne reached this conclusion? A theory. When the R got advice about mental health it panicked and bundled it all into an SOSR. The R then knew they’d get into trouble; was that the advice. Taking a misconduct process, giving it a different label and using that to get rid of C.

NR do you agree with me the only legal advice is at the bottom of this document.
AR yes but I also discussed this with my legal team.

NR so legal had no involvement in the drafting?
AR I drafted the document then had updated version after meeting.

NR ‘if an individual had GI views that would make them incompatible in setting’ Did you regard this as relevant?
AR I must have done.

NR if it was another PC eg black, would you regard that as relevant?

NR that line was kept in the next draft after the meeting with legal wasn’t it?
AR yes

NR ‘would trans residents have confidence in the EDI manager’ Trans residents didn’t know about the tweets though, because the account was anonymous.
AR (unclear)

NR ‘these tweets are gross misconduct’ was how the investigation was framed?
AR would have to review

NR no reference to her health is there?
AR no
AR in 2nd version there is a reference ‘ability to submit anonymous tweets’

NR. No reference to her rights to freedom of expression in private life?
AR this was guidance , not step by step

NR seems to be the only HR advice Ms Osborne received

NR first draft included bullying and harassment so in this guidance Ms Osborne was being asked about something that was now out of scope? Allegations against C or allegations made by C. Can you help?
AR I don’t know

NR List ..dismissal, is it appropriate to role. T and NB workplace reference?
Would you agree the steer here is away from her being offered alternative employment?
AR not clear

NR wasn’t under the options section

NR Council’s position on zero tolerance is a further reason for dismissal. How would they feel if she was offered another job? But the complainants were out of the council for two years.

Barry Young’s interview:
He says as the account was owned by a colleague I would have spoken and discuss their views. Your report did not consider that C was subject of discrimination by her colleagues?
AR (inaudible)

J asking for details of how many people in department and structure.

J Are you and Paula peers?
AR yes

J and what about Tracey?

AR a number of teams. Casework, a number of HR specialists and officers.

J within that team, how much was T and GC an issue?
AR from my own perspective not much of an issue

J Reference in some documents…were you involved, so you wouldn’t be able to help generally with considering options?

AR no (inaudible)

Partially audible convo between J and AR about straightforward misconduct cases.

J releases AR from her affirmation.

NR asking about future. Asking to either delay further or strike out claims?

J A good use of time to discuss public hearing and have a case management discussion.

J proceedings end and we return at 1000 Monday morning.

This case really has it all.

• Self righteous colleagues
• Trans men are men & trans women are women and trans rights are human rights adopted as a belief from a Council
• No disclosure in parts
• Late disclosure in parts
• Incomplete disclosure
• A dodgy whatsapp group of said colleagues
• All phones that were involved in whatsapp group now lost
• HR people giving advice left right and centre but nothing written down
• Someone compromised put in as investigating officer
• A private anonymous social media account that likes some GC tweets and is hunted down and disclosed to employer
• A senior manager in thrall to the younger employees and willing to do anything to please
• Stonewall and Mermaids

Well done Lorna. Don't let them grind you down!

And I see you're also suing your Union. More power to your elbow.

@justabaker - thank you to Tribunal tweets and team.

Any word on remote access? I know I'm late to the proceedings but wonder if anyone has the tribunal details.

Remembers clearly that certain words are wrong. Utterly forgets everything else.

As Jo Phoenix said in her blog post

Despite everything that has happened to her – and her story is like a montage of all the worse bits of all our cases combined into one - she remains a remarkable woman. Strong. Determined. Very centred. It is clear to me that she sees through the bullshit. She is no witch. None of us are. That’s the whole point.

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/ashamed

Thanks for this, makes it so much easier to understand the TT reporting. What a shitshow!

There is a lot in there - it hard to read in a block but maybe we can get some momentum to cut and paste across and the distill the issues.

I wonder if there is remote viewing.

Sorry, I meant to add a thank you to @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts for copy/pasting too.

Yes, I was wondering if anyone knows how to get access to the remote feed of this tribunal. It sounds like (from other observers on X) that it’s been quite a squirmfest from the MCC witnesses

I haven't read Tribunal Tweets, just Jo phoenix's substack article, but blimey 😦 The person she line managed went after her because she liked a couple of tweets by "bad" women such as JKR. These cases never fail to astound me.