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.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
SN No I sont accept that. Looked at as a package. Afaik these tweets were freely available on the internet
NR How was C to receive them
SN It's complicated. I wanted to meet her to discuss the GG account but wasnt sure it belonger to her. That was my intention and maybe I shld have made it clearer

NR Y've changed yr reason - too offensive. Y'd already shared w HR by forwarding things to HR.
SN Yes HR were copied in. Those attachments and WT files were downladed on MCC system
NR So u cld sent to C
SN Wasnt sure belonged to her. So wanted to meet her and discuss.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR Is the real reason u treated her differently to HR..
SN I wanted to know it was her account as contained swearing etc. HR already knew abou tthe info. There'd been a Cx
NR U took against the C due to her beliefs
SN I deny this. It was because I wasnt sure were her tweets and didnt want to distress her, Not 100% sure

NR Y're saying to avoid distressing her?
SN [repeats]
NR Y're saying so offensive so cldnt send yrself
SN [repeats offensive language and not sure if account was the Cs]
NR U regarded the tweets as v offensive
Yes as swearing and the views

Why couldn’t she send a link to the Twitter account saying we are investigating this account and is it you?

Not oh it’s so offensive and shocking 😳 I couldn’t possibly sully my email account.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
NR So did she send the tweets and establish whether are offensive or misconduct
Yes
NR As IO u have an open min
SN Yes
NR But u said was so offensive that cldnt send but purpose of Ix is whether is offensive or not
SN [repeats]
NR U have already made a conclusion. U had a closed mind re GG Ix

SN No. I need to find out the owner of the GG account
NR This will now be chronological afaic [new page in WS] This was about unisclosed info?
SN It has now been disclosed last night but also previously afaik
NR So already given in other searches
SN Yes

NR The legal team told us they sent everything. Someone is incorrect here
SN Theres been a no of searches and I'm sure it's been provided to the Rs lawyers is my inderstanding
NR We didnt have a single doc from Hr re yr Ix until last night. Do u accept

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
SN [missed]
NR JJ sent u the notes, after starting the Ix and a summary of the Cx. Were u sent the email about Cs GC beliefs on p886?
SN [reading] i cant recall seeing it but it may have been linked to previous docs
NR Look at the summary u were sent. Do u agree on p1099 JJ
had already removed onboarding Cx
Yes

NR What sort of Ix was it to be
NS Mainly management issues and comments
NR I meant what process
SN understood to be disciplinary
NR She said it wasnt at handover point
SN That was my understanding

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR So we dont have anyone to say who made the decision for it to be disciplinary. U both deny this
SN [missed]
NR Inpara 18 of yr WS, I dont think we have disclosure on this even now
SN The letter templates?
NR Yes. I might be correted but I dont think we do have it
SN I shared it previously and sent it again last week

NR We really dont think we have it even now. U contact C on 26 Oct to arrange an interview. She asks for adjustment of more reading time. U confirm 14 Nov mtg
SN Yes, yes, yes
NR U change to Nov 21st for yr convenience
SN Yes
NR U email C on 2 Nov: [reads fast]

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
SN I cant recall what that new info was
NR We cant work out what it is due to poor disclosure, U interviewed Alfie Hewett on ?
Yes
NR He was named by SH as a witness
SN [missed]
NR Accompanied by Barry Young
Yes, I dont know if new mwmber to EDI

NR Both reported to C
SN Yes
NR Its meant to be a confid Ix
Yes
NR Do u accept Mr young being privy was underminding to C
SN A tricky situation. Is part of Ix process to be able to bring someone in

NR AS submitted updated Cx on 23 Dec as she thought 1st was too emotional
SN Yes, so I understand
NR [reads out re adding more examples and her impact statement] So no less emotional, just more egs
SN Think was sent to JJ. That was the reason provided re changes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR In the changed impact statement, the only change I can spot is the last paragraph where has moved from saying is a capability case to a conduct case. Do you want to compare them? [gives page nos]

SN Can I read these?
NR Yes, It's just the last paragraph
SN Yes
NR Do uaccept she's changed what it shld be
SN Yes, she has asked for a change

NR Did u ever consider it was a pile on on the C
SN I didnt think anything untoward. They had their experiences. Yes, it was a complicated Ix, very much so

NR [new doc re access to work] One aspect of the case is how info was given to the C. This job description is about the Cs support worker
SN I didnt know she had one previously

NR The C had adjustment cos of reading
SN I dint know about 7 and 8 in this doc although knew she had eye issues. I was aware of eye surgery.

NR And following this, an email of 1043 and using adjusted technology to read

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR on p1007, and email from her to u about her screen and reading restrictions Yes NR She was off sick for 6 wks over Oct/Nov. From yr disc guidance. This was yr 1st Ix SN Yes, but done at prev employers. And had had the training NR Can u see part on the letter and specific allegations

SN Yes NR [new page] Allegations relate to yr management of staff and inapprop comments judged discriminatory. Do u agree that not specific? SN Gives enough detail and had supporting info NR Do u honestly think breach of personal data is specific. It doesnt say describe the cataegory but be specific

SN [missed] NR There were about 100 allegations... Is this a good time to stop J You cannot discuss your evidence and the clerk will being you back in about 15 mins

COURT ADJOURNS

Just delurking from a SM break to say thank you to Lorna Young, TTs and JaneDoeKeepsReceipts.

I was HR manager in a local authority and knew that my GC beliefs would ultimately trip me up in the #bekind council. So I took early retirement. My heart goes out to Lorna because that could have been me. I am following the case with great interest and will plant as many seeds as necessary to get Lorna a result.

Thank you @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts

I'm already angry about whatever the result of this court case is because I know like Jo Phoenix's case or any of the others there will be zero repercussions for the people responsible. They spout absolute mince in the witness box, are presented with hard evidence of their bigotry (whatever they spout about inclusion), show themselves and their organisations up but just walk away.

The only explanation is, were their bosses to sack them or even just carry out any sort of disciplinary action, they fear that they could retaliate by uncovering precisely how pervasive and approved of this ideology is. Not that it is much of a secret at MCC. I hope someone asks Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester and PM hopeful, about this.

Liking a tweet, stocking a book... doesn't take much for the Stasi to blacklist you, does it? "I have witnessed first hand how such attitudes harm people within our communities"

"Harm" is doing some heavy lifting... we need some actual definitions here.

Off on a tangent here, but I was just reading a news item about violence in Scottish schools, which everyone agrees is a big problem and is increasing massively. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy02p7d4eyeo However, "The official definition of violence in the workplace includes verbal abuse, threats or harassment. This means that incidents of 'violence' recorded in Scotland's schools could include anything from swearing at a teacher right up to a very serious assault." "Aberdeen ... could not provide the data as they don't record physical assaults separately from physical injuries." "Stirling Council said its health and safety system did not differentiate between assaults on pupils and assaults on teachers until it made a change earlier this year." It beggars belief that on something so important they do not record the details so that they can assess and address what is actually happening here. Basic common sense, surely?

What a mess MCC have made of this - that's independent of any of the actual issues involved.

If I'm reading it right, they can't even say who/when/why the matter became a disciplinary matter leading to dismissal.

There are some significant issues here - reconciling strong personal beliefs with organisational policy and legislation; social media activity by people in positions of authority; management styles; support given to employees with disabilities - but they are hidden under an avalanche of lack of process, poor record-keeping, lack of objectivity amounting to intolerance and prejudice, disregard for the law etc.

Yes - good summary.

These cases have the same play book.

Monday 18 May 2026
Morning - session 2

All material from Tribunal Tweets - please subscribe and support!

[I am playing catch up so if I miss any tweets - all errors my own]

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1h
NR We were on the invitation letter re disc Ix. U told her [reads re gross misconduct that cld lead to summary dismissal] U didnt explain which alleg was gross misconduct
SN I said discrim comments re Pcs and the council's policies and the policy says cld be gross misconduct

NR Not my question
SN As a manager she shld understand discrim views cld be gross misconduct
NR All of it cld be gross misconduct
SN I clnt say until done the ix. I needed to speak to her
NR U knew were 100s of complaints including trivial things

NR why didnt u remove them
SN There cld have been management actions that came out of it even if not gross misconduct
NR WHereas JJ removed the onboarding u retained them
Yes
NR why did u do this
SN Cos of management actiosn

NR WHy didnt u say some of these wld likely not be gross misconduct?
SN [missed]
NR Let's go through. Y've redacted the impact statement
Yes
NR SH's complaint - all these redactions are u redacting the email evidence and the witnesses

SN I cant recall. I know are WSs but cant recall it all
NR U redacted SH's log of events
Yes
NR U sent her on p1168 the attach of 20 Jun email from SH to JJ w the supposedly incrim tweets
SN Yes, this info was shared
NR So the C wld have thought being Ix for being GC
SN

NR P1193: The C says in her email to u in response she discusses her eye issues and diff finding emails
Yes
NR SOme of these refer to my PC of GC beleif which is complicated
SN Yes, She refers to it
NR P119: another email from p1190 and her eye condition has flared Asking for a mtg?

SN Yes
NR p1182: she's sent u an email on 21st Nov re her concerns about the Ix using dictation software.
Yes
NR She wanted the scope of Ix to be revisited
SN Yes
NR She alleges breaches of Art 9and qoa dn discrim and harassment due to perception shes' GC
Yes

Re, the playbook(s)

Definitely NOT to derail, but perhaps a timely connection to this other thread of discussion, especially Amaryllis' post

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5530420-fascinating-article-about-the-failure-and-complicity-of-the-bbc-regarding-transactivism?page=3

The collective capture needs weeding out!

ps. JaneDoe, many thanks for posting from TT.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
55m
SN I didnt reduce the scope of the Ix. HR didnt suggest anything - nothing flagged by HR of concern
NR In para 10, she listed utterly trivial issues re laptop log in. The list goes on re toilet location. She thought a lot came nowhere near misconduct
Yes
NR

NR [read this last para on p1189] Do u accept is a reasonable concl
SN This corresp came in the day before but was the first contact I'd have w the C and planned to work thru things step by step. was v complex case
NR Did u find hard to manage
SN There was a lot to it and

NR Can u understand she'd find it even more challenging than u with her eye and MH issues
SN Yes, Can accept that
NR Yr response: on the am of the mtg, u recog saying it cld be overwhelming.
Yes
NR U didnt respond to her Art 9/10 rights or breach of the EA
SN No I didnt

SN They came in when out of office. No, I never engaged w them
NR U interviewed JJ on 15 Nov
Yes
NR U met the C for the 1st time. It took 2 weeks for notes to be sent to the C. Why?
SN I dont recall
NR [reading about sev sessions] How many sessions did u anticipate
SN Maybe 3 or 4 to ensure outcome and conclusions to the Ix, but cldnt be clear. An estimate

NR p1321: It was requested by u and LY that Qs be shared in advance of nect mtg and share WS knowing some parts might need to be redacted. U commited to share relevant info and Qs in advance
SN Share Qs w JS but yes anything of relevance
NR She sent u docs in advance
SN Yes

NR Then C had a chest infection
SN I dint know reason for being off
NR SHe did say
SN Sorry, dont recall. Yes, interveiwed AS.
NR She hadnt complained about ?
SN I cant recall but is what notes say
NR Then SH emails u about GG account [new doc]

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
50m
NR Did u think it a coincidence that AS mentioned GG in mtg and then SH emailed you
SN Yes, I thought was a coincidence. I was surprised to receive SH's email on the 22nd
NR on p1376, SH says [reads re having 2nd twitter account] I dont think she mentioned this in her Cx
SN I dont recall
NR

NR We dont have the attachments she sent you. In yr WS, u refer to this email. U refer to her having - u mention various pages. If u look at p1178, SH is attempting to prove GG belongs to LY and taken a tweet about the death of her father
SN Yes
NR Do u think SH had gone a bit too far
NR In trying to bring the C down
SH Bringing down isnt correct but I think has gone too far
NR U appended these?
Yes
NR p1156: u refer to tweets on both accounts about their father passing from cancer. Did u go too far
SN Yes, was an error of judgement. it shldnt have been in the report

NR C returned on 4 Jan
SN I beleive so
NR We know y'd commited to share anything of relevance at yr last mtg
Yes
NR Yr invitation is on p1142, You didnt sent her any docs in advance?
SN It was a continuation of points we hadnt been able to cover
NR Was GG in the scope of yr
I cant recall if was on 10 Jan

NR So cld have been in the scope
I cant recall. It cld have been a discussion point
NR Was a disc issue
It cld have been. The C needed to be able to discuss the issue and us report on it
NR Only the GG account being discussed in Witenss Interviews from this point
SN Correct

SN [lonf speech]
NR All in 2022. From Feb was only about GG
SN Correct. I interviewed SH then, my 1st interview w her
NR Why her
SN I wanted to know how it came to light. wanted a sense of what she's seen/
NR Following this, On Feb 12 she sent u more material
SN Yes

NR U asked for her to share more twitter screenshots
SN Yes, was day after our mtg. I cant recall more
NR She says she's spent a distressing hour looking through tweets and categorised into 3. Had been v anxious. Is this odd to spend the time if so anxious?

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
43m

[missed]
NR She suggests u contact Adiba. What did she mean by filling in gaps
SN Might be about finding out about the account
NR I'd suggest SH wanted to ruin the Cs life
SN Neith SH or AS had that manner. That'd be wrong
NR They said they'd continue to psrticipate

Yes
NR Why not clled as witnesses
SN I donr know
NR Do u think u shld have said about her being anxious in yr response
SN Approp in that context
NR U call them complaints in yr Ws
Yes
NR I think that email was disclosed last night. What was yr understanding re AH and BY

NR U say you received BYs WS twice but we only have 1 disclosure
SN [missed]
NR As to whether was a Cx. It was framed as a convo w the C. Under 'report of conversation' [reading]
NR was it framed as a report
That;s the title

NR This statement was asked to be written by JJ
SN It came from him but I wasnt aware of the origin of the info
NR We had no disclosure about this statement until last night. Do u accept we only have disclosure that u received it
SN I think so w/out looking at it all

NR We dont have him as a witness. 1 Nov 2022: [reads re GG account] This all starts w SH sharing GG with AH
Yes and no. It was shared but seems AH started it by reading GG account
NR But SH found the account
SN It appears so
NR % mins later he forwarded it to his team
Yes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR They were all GC news
SN Yes
NR They'd whipped themselves up by finding a GC account
SN [missed]

NR On 16 Feb this letter to the C is about Ix into GG account
SN Yes

NR U use a passive voice, common from the R, re an initial Ix and whether to Ix further. U use
the same passive voice. Who did the initial review
SN Understand Nick McMillan looked at it and then referred account to HR

NR who concluded need further Ix
SN With HR but cant recall who

NR Who made the decison. Was it you
SN It was made w HR. I cant recall

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR U say an independent Ix and must caution you and give u a prelim warning it may be gross misconduct
SN Yes

NR Who decided the GG shld be treated as gross misconduct
SN I cant recall the detail. The policy of discrimination.

NR What was the GM
SN Re the tweets?

NR Yes. How the views expressed. Compatibility w the role
NR Did anyone think to discuss the GG w the C before starting a disc process?
[missed]
NR U told her that had been Cx plural?
NR But not what they wereSN Not at that point
NR and referred to asking Qs re specific posts
SN I said u need to review the …

NR U had specific posts u wanted to ask her about
SN I cant recall which posts

NR So u agree to share info, to this invitation re new allegations which she hasnt seen
SN U cld put likr that. That was the plan

NR U reneged on yr plan
SN Things had moved on [extremely fast] Wrt to this, I stated why shared I have already said.

NR U's turned against the C for being GC
No. I had an open mind. I wanted to talk to her. Maybe I shld have been clearer but that was my intention.
SN I wasnt willing to share info until I knew was GG. Maybe I shld have been more specific

NR U refer to int audit team who had undertaken an assessment
Yes

NR The only email we have even now from int audit is on p1451
NR Remind yourself of it. This is not from int audit
SN No it's from HR

NR So we dont have the int audit review. Did u
SN Not at that point no

NR This is v vague, did u see it
SN This is the only info I've seen. Was told it verbally

NR Yr letter was sent Sept 16, and the audit wasnt done til the following day
SN [missed]

NR The C wanted info and requested this the following day
SN Yes

NR U respond on p1445 [reading] who were u refering to re HR and EDI
SN AH and ??

NR SH?
Yes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR HR looked into SM posts

NR U refer to int audit and then u refuse to share the info
SN Declined

NR Y're aware she attempted suicide the next week
SN I wasnt made aware of this. Just C unable to participate. Wasnt told whilst doing the Ix. Hr didnt tell me about it

NR They allowed u to continue following it
Yes

NR The ppl u interviewed were Jenny cole, AS BY and ?
Yes, her current and former team

NR Looking at BY interview: Lorna had encouraged me to apply for the role and had a lot of respect for her
NR: I picked up it was a t'phobic acount. Are u aware al ot say GC is transphobia [reading fast re kemi B and KJK] Someone has liked a tweet and he finds that offensive
SN Yes

NR Scotland and GI, what a terrible day. Y're aware this is about gender reform in Scotland
Yes

NR He's saying the C is GC
SN Potentially it cld be read like that

NR His email to ? re "so-called GC views" on p1392. LY expressed her concerns [reads out] His way of describing GC views
Yes

NR Back to his interview, he told u - asked about contacting the account and said where
NR he worked TWAW etc. I wld ask for an informal chat to discuss their views
Yes

NR p1464: he gave account of JJs joint mtg: all other EDI members have read the account and we had concerns about working w someone w these opinions
Yes

NR His final observations: I feel conflicted as LY so supportive of me in the past. I feel sad. How did it come to this
NR He felt an informal convo to discuss views. AN interview for disc isnt a convo is it? Did u ever think we're going too hard and shld have mediation in team
SN Felt needed convos w team and needed a fill picture. Unfortunately I didnt have..

NR Michele wheeler was next interviewee, on disability and age, she was new and never met the C
Yes, Correct
NR Why interveiw her
She'd seen the contents of GG. I wanted to understand if she'd seen and if had caused distress

NR Do u think undermining of the c? JJ held a mtg. U held Ix mtgs with each separetly. This process fuelled sense of drama abou the tweets
SN Was already a sense of drama w a secret X account. Abida also being asked about hidden. JJ took the correct action to bring tog and have a convo and dial things down. I needed to piece tog the info I didnt want to d with the C
Miss Wheeler said lots of T'phobic views. Is GC t'phoboc
SN Not necessarily

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR She worked for Mermaids befor MCC. Given this work I'm aware of dog whistles and nuance used by anti trans groups. The Suffragette colours are transphobic. She's saying to demonstate GC via colours
SN It;s not saying that directly

NR She recognises a shift in who the C is following. She says this did happen as she got unwell. Ms W had noted a shift in her tweets
SN She said her interpret of how X worked

NR Had become increasinly GC
SN That's what she says she saw

NR Whether it is ...AH described as confessing to a 2nd account?
I dont know

NR This is fairer. She told them nothing apart from a ref to Manch. Does GG refer to Manch?
SN I'd need to look at the profile. I dont recall

NR I do have personal fears about victimisation and dont want to be targetted by her. If someone w antitrans views I dont want as my LM and may have to move
NR We know "anti trans views" is a by word for GC
AM I dont think that's fair
SN Potentially, yes

NR She told u, AH initially shared the link and didnt understand some it was saying. why interview her
SN It had already been scheduled. I knew nothing of her views

NR Looking at Miss Coles interview: I saw anti T msgs by liking JKR tweets
SN Thats a generic statement. I'm not aware of what she's referencing

NR Why interview AS who had left 9 months ag
SN I felt I needed to and she'd been ref in others WSs

NR AH had said she was on WA group. Did SH say u should
SN No

NR p1474: [reads re inapprop for being EDI manager and likely to be trust issues] She knew the maj had seen the GG content
SN Potentially. I dont know

NR In yr WS: para 95-98 at least. Is all material on docs not disclosed
SN [cant hear] The email shld have been disclosed.

NR Even now we dont have him attaching the doc
SN I'd need to dbl check that

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR Back to WS: para 100. Previously undisclosed but we have this now, maybe not all of it. Para 101, do u accept is an undoc mtg
Yes

NR I dont think we've had disclosure re para 102. Nor the draft IO or meeting w Tracy
SN That info shld have been shared

NR I dont have v much left. Wld u rather break early or late
AM I have a few Qs

J Y'll continue after lunch. How will we work this pm.
AM Sharmila is next

J Will we finish w her this afternoon
NR I expect so

J We'll adjourn until 1.50pm

We're on a lunch break.

Kudos to the Manchester clerk team. They've a good remote set up and are quick to provide access. If you have time this week come along to show support for Lorna Young.

For those interested in remote access, I've been advised:

• 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.