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.

Thank you for the sterling job posting and condensing the tweets also @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts
I have applied for remote access as I would love to watch some of the body language of these so-called professionals.
I've been thinking a lot about the way EDI teams have got themselves into quite a pickle via lanyards and flag-waving, giving a perhaps unintentional free-rein to activists who then think that the prevailing dominant position (that they occupy) is the only way to think.
Not sure if others have found the podcast 'This isn't working' but it's an interesting insight into HR and investigates how we've got here and how to return some grown-ups back into the rooms/depts (HR should be protecting companies from litigation, not doing the opposite that we so often see in these tribunals!)

“The suffragette colours are transphobic”. Crikey.

I’m assuming “GG” is the name of a Twitter/X account? This reminds me exactly why I have a separate account for anything GC and I don’t tell people who I am.

GG was a Twitter account called Galway Girl. It was an anonymous account that Lorna Young had which people she worked with found out was hers and was then used against her.

Yes - GalwayGirl

Yes its Glasgow Girls.

Ex Mermaid and Pro Stonewall colleagues went on a deep witchhunt to catch a witch.

A few GC likes and curtains on Lorna's career. The likes were too horrible to even sent on the MCC email network. The internet would have been scandalised.

How did they find it was her?

Bloody chilling.

All work comes from the excellent work of the Tribunal Tweets team.

Please like and subscribe.

Monday 18 May 2026
Afternoon Session

Good afternoon; this is day 6 in the hearing at employment tribunal of Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
39m
The court is taking lunch break at present; we expect the hearing to begin at 13:50.

C/LY - Lorna Young, the claimant
NR - Nathan Roberts, barrister for C

R/MCC - Manchester City Council, respondent
AM - Aileen McColgan, barrister for R

When the hearing begins, NR will complete his cross-examination of MCC witness Sarah Narici (SN), and the court will then hear from MCC witness Sharmila Kar (SK), Joint Director of Equality, Inclusion and Engagement.

We're a collective of volunteer citizen journalists & 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

NR: [ref p1562 SN's IX report]
NR: was left as draft. Is this the only draft ever?
SN: Yes as far as I'm aware

NR: And we have no record or this being sent to anyone?
SN: [missed]
NR: p1563 - box with 'details of any regulatory - ' you say, implications re EA2010. What were these?
SN: Report doesn't say any.
NR: That is why I am asking you.

SN: Implications in respect of, the tweets that had been shared.
NR: You are going to have to give more details. What EA implications?
SN: Way in which expressions made, re ppl protected by the EA.

NR: You say EA breached?
SN: No, but implications.
NR: What implications?
SN: The way the tweets were phrased.

NR: Are you aware that the EA2010 does not cover what people say on Twitter? Do you accept?
SN: You have to show me the reference before I can say
NR: You didn't know the EA doesn't cover what ppl say on twitter?
SN: Need to see the reference.

NR: It's an open Q. Did you know it doesn't?
SN: Don't know

J: What did you think the EA said about tweets?
SN: About the way ppl say things.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
23m
J: So you mean you thought, if someone tweeted something racist that would be a breach of EA?
SN: Yes.

NR: If you are wrong about that, this IX report is based on false assumption about the EA?
SN: EA not the only basis for report.
SN: But yes the EA bit might be wrong [I think is what SN said]

NR: p1564 the list of evidence. (3) "allegations of 27/6" reported to JJ. Why did you include the original SH allegations, when the IX was re 'GalwayGirl' and not those?
SN: I can't now recall

NR: Allegation 1 - let's read the para - you concluded that evidence + witness IVs it is believed - you mean you believe?
SN: Yes
NR: - that GG acc belongs to LY and if so, that is gross misconduct. Yes?
SN: Yes

NR: Is it normal for an IX officer - rather than DX officer - to conclude "gross misconduct"
SN: Yes I accept
NR: You overstepped?
SN: Yes accept.

NR: does this not show you apporached the whole IX with a closed mind not an open one?
SN: Don't accept that. For example I knew I needed to speak to C
NR: We covered this morning so won't pursue.

NR: You say you'd had response from LY saying the correspondence had been confusing - you put in inverted commas - to belittle?
SN: No
NR: Do you agree it was confusing?
SN: Can see why it might have been.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
18m
NR: You say, you "had to" review "offensive and derogatory" material. You said p1567 you wanted to put on record that you had found this IX v difficult. You say "frankly shocking", do you mean the tweets
SN: My reflection on everything not just tweets - what ppl had said to me.

SN: Perhaps shd not have put in personal view
NR: When you say "shocking" do you mean the examples you give that we're about to go to?
SN: Yes, shocking in various degrees.

NR: Let's look at your examples. p1566. You quote 1-5 tweets that you had, you also cite a WS that someone had seen something else on twitter, and a TikTok video. One is saying "don't give a fuck about your pronouns", you didn't have the tweet.

SN: Yes I did, in evidence pack.
NR: I can say certainly that this has never been disclosed. Not to the C at the time, not to the court.
SN: It was an appendix -
NR: It can't have been. Not sent to C re final of DX.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
13m
NR: This tweet was not complained of by SH originally. NR: You refer it to Alfie Hewett.
SN: [missed]
J: [Goes through the IX report, its reference, which is to AH statement]. If there had been a copy of the shot, it would have been a different evidence number.

SN: Um number 19.
NR: That is not the same.
SN: If we are talking about AH statement - no there isn't a tweet copy
J: So you put something in IX report that you had not seen?
SN: Relying on AH statement

NR: So you don't know if AH correct?
SN: No
NR: And if it was correct, you don't know context?
SN: No.

*NR: Example 4 on your IX report. Actual tweet is p1772. What does "trans-age" mean?
SN: Ppl that feel a different age inside

NR: Such as adults who ID as children?
SN: Yes

NR: You seriously say C disagreeing with that is gross misconduct?

SN: As I've said, it's the sum of it all

NR: This is not "shocking", is it?

SN: It cd be to those ppl?

NR: That is who the Council is protecting?

*NR: Are 'trans-age' ppl protected under the EA2010?

[I don't think SN answers]*

Judge: What did you think the EA said about tweets?

A HR investigating officer being pulled up by the Judge on the fact that she doesn't have a clue what the Equality Act actually says.😂

Yes, it's horrible. I think there was some kind of 'jigsaw identification' of the account which shows a pretty motivated and determined effort to identify and then punish wrong-think.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
9m
NR: We already know that some of what you cite is simply standard gender critical views.
SN: Agree but that is for DX officer to decide on.
SN: Volume of view, some were derogatory.

NR: You say the tweets were in line with C views etc expressed to witnesses. Those comments by C went no further at all than being basically gender-critical. You are connecting alleged expressed at work to misconduct. You are making a connection that doesn't exist
SN: Yes you

NR: The report summary. You say your report is balanced?
SN: Yes it says that

NR: What was 'balanced'?
SN: Had taken everything into account

NR: There is not one word in favour of the C.
SN: As balanced as it cd be without talking to her.

NR: You say, not compatible with being an EDI manager. It's her views that think make her unsuitable.
SN: No, the volume and the manner of expression. But I agree, should have been made clearer.

NR: You talk of MCC values. Includes the TWAW motion from a year earler?
SN: No, not about position on trans, about overall MCC values.

NR: Normally in a misconduct IX there is detail of X action -> Y harm. You don't make such an analysis?
SN: No, not here

NR: You nowhere refer to GC views protected?
SN: No

NR: No reference to freedom of speech?
SN: No

NR: No mention of all of this being outside work?
SN: No

NR: No mention of GG being an anonymous account and no real proof it's C?
SN: Does go over similarities to C etc

NR: This report says, you can't be gender critical and work in EDI?
SN: No, doesn't say that, was about volume and manner.

NR: "Volume" including simple statements of GC beliefs?
SN: Disagree.
NR: No further Qs.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

J: Does report engage with the OH report into C?
NR: J, that in fact came after the report.

J: You said you had no IX experience before at MCC but did elsewhere?
SN: Yes, in previous rule I did and IX but it was a lot simpler than this, and with straightforward conclusion.

J: You had done just one?
SN: Yes

J: You did training re IXs?
SN: Yes MCC training - I think a few hours.

J: [asks re SN job titles then and now - SN answers]

NR: Example 4 on your IX report. Actual tweet is p1772. What does "trans-age" mean?
SN: Ppl that feel a different age inside
NR: Such as adults who ID as children?
SN: Yes
NR: You seriously say C disagreeing with that is gross misconduct?

Huh, what? ... words fail me

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

J: What is your professional background?
SN: Housing & regeneration, commercial & energy - only high level involvement in equalities
J: Any training
SN: Not in any great detail, and at a high level.

J: And in terms of current affairs debate, trans / GC - what involvement?
SN: No great extent [I think]

J: You said to NR this morning, re GC views, you said you are quite neutral but there are ways of saying that are not acceptable.
SN: Yes

J: So what would it have been acceptable for the C to say?
SN: Um, nothing derogatory, no singling out of individuals, being kind.

J: So if she had said she disagreed with MCC that TWAW, is that acceptable?
SN: There's her personal opinion, but then the work context, so there's a line.

J: Not sure if you are saying it's OK, or OK but not at work?
SN: Need to support the Council in this space at work.

J: I'm not trying to make this difficult, but, I think you are saying that in her role at work she should not have said she disagreed with the motion?
SN: I think, challenging in that role.

J: "Challenging"?
SN: Yes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

[AM re-exam]

AM: On disclosure questions - can you remember when you were asked, can you remember when?

SN: I think 2024 AM: And C made an SAR as well as lawyers re disclosure.

SN: I think that was 2024 also.

AM: My understanding is that first lawyer's request was 2025. So what were you being asked for in 2024?

SN: Same kinds of information, I think there were multiple requests.

AM: Do you know where in the Council the material you disclosed to the SAR would have been held?

SN: Legal, HR I think

AM: So when you said "I have disclosed", that cd have been re SAR not re this case?

SN: I think so.

NR: You say EA breached?
SN: No, but implications.
NR: What implications?
SN: The way the tweets were phrased.

The Bananarama Defence making an early appearance. Did anyone have that on their Tribunal Bingo Card?

I also had “Taking the opinions of others as gospel” <stamps dabber down with a flourish>

Oh please please get out the popcorn 🍿

This is so good.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
6m
J: [releases SN from evidence]

AM: Next witness is Sharmila Kar.

[Witness gives affirmation]

AM [takes witness through swearing to the WS]
AM: No Qs

NR: I understand you work for a NHS trust but are paid partly by MCC?
SK: It's a board not a trust but yes, part NHS part MCC

NR: You were responsible for MCC EDI team from 2023
SK: Yes inherited from JJ.

NR: Aware of debate gender identity theory / gender critical?
SK: Yes aware

NR: Both sides view the other as harmful?
SK: Yes, live debate.

NR: On LinkedIn you have liked an posted quite a lot of material that is on transrights side?
SK: Yes, trans-inclusive.

NR: Your LinkedIn shows MCC?
SK: Yes and other roles.

NR: p1951 Am sure you are aware of this tweet. You show your role with MCC here?
SK: Yes

NR: You've liked a tweet re loving Judith Butler's new book - JB "wants TERFs to wake up". You're aware TERF can be viewed as a slur?

SK: Disagree it's a slur, but, weaponised by both sides.

NR: p1953. Another piece you have liked - talks of TERFs again, and "first they came for this, then that".
SK: This was investigated but found no case to answer

NR: Will come on to that.

NR: p664. Photo you posted on LinkedIn?
SK: Yes

NR: Slide is clearer in p643. This is what you posted on LinkedIn?
SK: This isn't the same picture, with S Whittle in.

NR: I am comparing the slides
SK: Ah yes I see.

NR: Are you aware that the EA2010 does not cover what people say on Twitter? Do you accept?
SN: You have to show me the reference before I can say
NR: You didn't know the EA doesn't cover what ppl say on twitter?
SN: Need to see the reference.
NR: It's an open Q. Did you know it doesn't?
SN: Don't know

J: What did you think the EA said about tweets?
SN: About the way ppl say things.

J: So you mean you thought, if someone tweeted something racist that would be a breach of EA?
SN: Yes.

.

Oh good grief, this cannot be real, but, of course, it is.

Thank you for doing this @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts

just catching up. I'm astonished!

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m

NR: Says Supreme Court decision is the product of "organised transphobia"
SK: SW presentation covered many issues.

NR: Specifically the Supreme Court decision. "Triumph of organised transphobia"
SK: No I just posted the first slide from SW presentation

NR: "Triumph" can only be the SCourt decision?

J: Not sure that's clear from the images? I take your point but I'm not sure it's fair to SK to say that that is what she meant.

NR: I will keep on with the Qs, to see where we go. I am suggesting that any reasonable person might think I am right? Do you think an EDI leader should keep up to date with equality law?
SK: yes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
NR: We've heard a lot about whether an EDI leader can be gender critical. Do you think it's OK for an EDI leader to post something that appears to connect equality law to 'organised transphobia'?
SK: Don't agree with that interpretation

NR: Does this presentation link equality law to 'organised transphobia'
SK: Disagree [ longer explanation]

NR: Presentation equated gender critical views to 'anti-trans'
SK: Disagree, no it doesn't.

NR: I understand you searched for your own disclosusure?

[Oh here we go....disclosure alert]

SK: Yes

NR: C specifically requested any information about IXs into your own social media activity.
SK: Didn't know what.

Interesting, it's becoming clear an EDI leader should

1. Not be GC
2. Not keep up to date with equity law