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.

So they think Twitter is covered by the equality act, and if someone says they're trans age that's also covered?

Bloody hell. There are no words. These people are kindergarten level.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
NR: [Gives references to C requesting this, re SK and BY]
NR: This is the response [SK is reading]
SK: "Documents relating to the social media" of SK and BY

NR: Yes, and then "any docs re IXing". MCC says, none held. Were you asked at that time re any IX?
SK: By whom?
NR: Your legal team.
SK: [Explains that HR had the info]

NR: You were completely exonerated
SK: Yes

NR: C only made aware of the IX into you was when we saw your WS, you agree?
SK: HR had the info
NR: But C only first heard then?
SK: Could be.

SK: The IX was an NHS one not MCC

NR: MCC though quite happy to have an EDI lead who posts derogatorily about "TERFs"?
SK: I don't agree it's a slur.

NR: {missed}
SK: I think vaguely, came up that there was an IX into tweets when JJ handed over. But didn't know any real detail.

NR: Statement from AH re 'GalwayGirl' account. Says knowledge of this went all the way to you.
SK: No, I wasn't aware.

You know that fat that needs to be trimmed to reduce council budgets?
The stuff people have been searching high and low for?
I think I may have found some of it

Not only do they have absolutely no idea how the EA operates (but have taken the trans rights side anyway) but one employee was posting openly and vociferously on one side of the debate and that was absolutely A-OK, but someone who does the opposite (even from an anonymous account) is hunted down and fired.

And this makes sense…how?!

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR: You became LY line manager around time of suicide attempt etc?
SK: I think formally, 1st March.
NR: p1481 OH assessment in March. You saw this?
SK: Yes

NR: So there is a section "current position" [SK reads] Makes it clear the IX had lead to C taking overdose?
SK: Yes
NR: if you read the next paragraph [SK reads]

NR: So advice was that C not in a position to make any significant decisions?
SK: According to OH report yes

NR: And in last para. Says C might re-engage in future, or cd consider delegating, but def not fit at present?
SK: Yes

MCC is a horrendous place to work. Rife with bullying, toxic positivity and micromanagement that got worse when Labour got into government. There is a lot of control around comms and everyone must tow the Bev Craig line, where one must be relentlessly positive about “The City” (meaning the council policy, officers and elected members). I was on the cusp of bringing a grievance (not GC related) but I got out instead for the sake of my MH.I know of at least one other person who has won a tribunal recently, and another two who are in preparation. At one time there was a “we think TWAW” statement on the website so I’m not at all surprised this case has come along.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m

NR: If we look at the next OH report. Says in 4 weeks LY might be in position to re-engage with IX?
SK: Yes

NR: Next OH report after that. 27/4/23 - things seem worse - says any work contact is triggering MH issues for C, panic etc, you saw this?

SK: Yes

NR: This is a challenging absence management situation, but, you knew any work contact triggering for C? SK: Yes NR: Particularly anything to do with the IX?

SK Yes, but, OH had also said that the IX needed to be concluded for C's benefit. That's how I read the reports.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m

NR: If we look at the next OH report. Says in 4 weeks LY might be in position to re-engage with IX?
SK: Yes

NR: Next OH report after that. 27/4/23 - things seem worse - says any work contact is triggering MH issues for C, panic etc, you saw this?
SK: Yes

NR: This is a challenging absence management situation, but, you knew any work contact triggering for C?
SK: Yes

NR: Particularly anything to do with the IX?
SK Yes, but, OH had also said that the IX needed to be concluded for C's benefit. That's how I read the reports.

NR: p1490, your first contact with C - or first we have disclosed at least?
SK: Was the first.

NR: You invite her to an AMR. C replies that she isn't ready for that - not your fault but anything to do with work - she asks for a written AMR
SK: Yes

NR: p1484 you say you'd prefer Zoom or face to face but understand her situation, & you want to offer welfare / support
SK: yes

NR: She replies that she still finds work contact triggers suicidal thoughts and asks you to only write to a particular email address?
SK: Yes

NR: p1492 you say you've had OH report and want to discuss with her, she says not in person, cd do phone, wants to bring MH support worker.
SK: Yes

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.

If only you nasty TERFs would say that biological men aren't women in a less derogatory and more kind way.

BE KIND!!!!!

Pushing someone to suicide is not kind. BE KIND.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
5m

NR: Put it to you: You should have listed to C about her health at the AMR, or, you should have given her written notice you would be talking about how to progress the IX?
SK: Disagree. I had already mentioned the OH report.

NR: I say, you should have given her warning you wanted to discuss the IX.
SK: I disagree, it was in the OH report, your interpretation, and IX was a trigger for her.

NR: So you should have mentioned it in advance
SK: Probably.

NR: Letter 7/6 from the MH worker, says C had not expected IX to come up?
SK: Yes

NR: Meeting did not go well
SK: Can agree that.

NR: C was audibly and visibly distressed as soon as IX raised. In your WS.
SK: Yes

Hmmm... that'll be the "trans age" part of the EA at work, presumably?

I’ve often wondered how the Bananarama Defence is supposed to work in reality because no one has ever clarified how you ARE allowed to discuss GC views in a way that is acceptable.

So you mustn’t say anything that anyone finds upsetting, mustn’t discuss individuals (presumably only broad concepts) and - most importantly - you must BE KIND.

Also known as: “Shut up bigot”

Well all she seemed to do was anonymously like some tweets.

So she didn't actually say anything. But maybe it was the way she liked it. Too firm with her finger?

Looking like they absolutely hounded her, doesn't it?

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
8m

NR: p1536 - you tell C there will be a DX, and it will take place without her for completion of the IX.
SK: I'm not sure it says "without her".
NR: But you didn't 'reconvene' with C before deciding this
SK: No
NR: And no further OH done re this.
SK: No

NR: This was sent 8th June. You say "we have decided ..." your decision?
SK: No
NR: Whose
SK: I think discussion with HR

NR: But it says "decision".
SK: Discussion with HR
NR: JJ said, HR advise, we decide.
SK: Slightly different for me as not actually MCC. More reliance on HR.
[NR asks who in HR, too many names]

NR: You say to C, we explored other options, you were not receptive - is that a fair description?
SK: If you look at recordings - letter isn't well worded, but, we were keen to move past the IX as C finding it so distressing.

NR: Your WS - you say not involved in any of the IXs etc, only there to support C as her line manager. But all the decisions etc were communicated to C by you?
SK: Not quite all I think.

NR: I am not clear whether you were just the postbox for MCC, or whether a decision maker?
SK: I think the former, but, lines were blurred.

NR: Can we agree, meeting ended with statement you would reconvene and the next thing C gets is notice of a disciplinary?

SK: Yes accept that
NR: It says DX, not SORS?
SK: Yes
NR: That was situatiojn at the time?
SK: Yes

NR: And was only social media use?
SK: Can't comment, wasn't involved.
NR: If you look at SN's WS [ref] we can see para98 there was meeting 30/5 and say, social media use only?
SK: Yes

NR: So by time of your letter, someone had decided only social media use?
SK: Probably yes.

NR: This is a good point to break?
J: We will take a short break

[BREAK]

Some years ago pre GC content someone on the team knew so they followed her and she blocked all colleagues.

So they passed this onto the new TRA in the EDI team and they got to work. Screenshoted everything and passed it onto the bosses.

Said it was next to literal death I am sure.

The playbook.

We all know that anything other than complete capitulation and genuflecting at the altar of gender woo is practically fascism.

Liking tweets? Burn the Nazi!

I am all ears for what MCC’s defence is going to be. £5 says it will be a smorgasbord of I don’t know/I don’t remember/Someone else told me to do it.

This is de facto behavior when you know that you are on the right side of history

Link to any tribunal results are welcomed :-)

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sharmila-kar-a2b5957

Joint Director Equality & Engagement NHS GM Integrated Care (Manchester Locality)/

Manchester City Council

Seems like she worked out how to censor her hateful views against the Supreme Court then as this is pretty locked down.

Sadly, the proceedings from today suggest that many officers at MCC are not aware of the EA and what it actually covers. What troubles me most is that its seemingly ok for Head of DEI to be publicly calling people terfs on social media and saying that SC judgement was “transphobic”. If I worked for MCC and had recently asked this person for advice on an issue directly impacted by SC in terms of single sex provision, how can I now trust that advice is impartial and within the law? Hypothetically speaking.

Does it worry anyone else that in pretty big organisations like NHS Fife or Manchester City Council, the people whose job it is to know the law don't actually know the law? All these tribunals have come out with pretty spectacular examples of people who don't even understand the basics of the Equality Act.

Worry? Yes. Surprise? Not in the slightest.

https://www.queerwell.org.uk/team-member/sharmila-kar

Is this her?

So neutral, so supportive.

See also TERF is not a slur. Ok hun.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharmila-kar-a2b5957/recent-activity/images/