Belief discrimination – take a “small claim” says Sex Matters!

[IwantToRetire]

If you are subjected to unlawful discrimination by a service provider, you can take what is known colloquially as a “small claim” to the county court.

This article relates to the law in England and Wales (in Scotland there is something similar called “simple procedure”).

Full details at https://sex-matters.org/practical-help/take-a-small-claim-for-belief-discrimination/

If you're going to criticise it as being "exploitative even", a strong criticism, did you read the article and watch the Youtube post? Because these things were addressed there, essential point by point: risks of losing, expectation of winning, strategic purpose of mass complaints and the current environment.

The rest of the thread is mostly you moving the goal posts about what the risks are and what's exploitative which reads very much as a dishonest attempt to confuse the situation rather than a good faith effort to clear up doubt, air concerns or criticize SM's modus operandi.

If you're imagining I don't think there's a problem with trans-identifying men using women's facilities, you're quite wrong. I think it's a huge issue. I welcome the SM suggestion and I support anyone who is discriminated against for the GC beliefs taking forward a claim. As far as I can see there are no downsides to any individual who does so.

On the other hand I don't think merely observing a man using the wrong toilet is going to rise to the level of securing damages in court. But if someone really thinks it does, I welcome them going forward.

If anyone does want to win a case in court they have to be able to state a case plainly in front of a sceptical audience. The first question will inevitably be 'how much money do you think you deserve to make you square'. Because that's the fundamental ask of any and every claim. If the claimant thinks asking 'how much' is somehow being clever then their claim isn't going to go far.

Ample Sheep is a regular poster and if I recall correctly a lawyer or legal adjacent.

It’s just questions that someone will get asked - it’s not undermining it’s practical.

What was the harm, how did it impact you, what’s the remedy? You can’t go to court if you don’t know what you’re asking for.

Fair enough to me.

That wasn't the intent in terms of post.

As I said I think to maybe list the issues you think this straight forward article appears to over look, just list them and forward them to SM.

In the context of the flow of the thread they read as trivialisation.

A good summary of all points would be more useful and obvious.

If SM can be professional, shouldn't we try?

Not a lawyer, but I have enjoyed 50 years of reading court judgments and other legal sources.

On the matter of harassment, somewhere there's a judgment that says people are expected to have a reasonably thick skin before turning to the law for remedy: not every insult rises to the level where a legal action is justified. I'll try to find it somewhere.

Being turned away from a venue for being Black, Muslim, or disabled is the harm which the EA2010 was designed to remedy. Similarly being turned away because of your legitimate GC beliefs. I'm not sure about the simple matter of seeing a man using a women's toilet. That's just my skepticism though.

I think that for a remedy one could ask the court to refund ticket price and travel costs for the day at the science museum that was disrupted by the man's behaviour and also ask that the museum updates its safeguarding and facilities policies, as well as staff training, to ensure that they are compliant with the SC ruling and subsequent EHRC code of practice.

These requests seem perfectly reasonable to me - what does the thread think?

I don't know about anyone else but the county court can't order specific performance of any of (the quite reasonable request that) the museum updates its safeguarding and facilities policies, as well as staff training, to ensure that they are compliant with the SC ruling and subsequent EHRC code of practice. None of that is in the court's jurisdiction.

There is a legal saying de minimis non curat lex - the law does not concern itself with trifles. I think that ticket price and travel costs is too small to trouble the County Court, and a judge would say so in no uncertain terms.

Naomi Cunningham tweeted regarding the Sex Matters guidance:

https://x.com/LoudBonnet/status/2060707029459624118?s=20

"Excellent. If your claim is a simple one, think about a DIY approach instead of paying (or crowdfunding) for lawyers.

^Years ago, I wrote a book (2nd-4th editions with co-author Michael Reed) about how to do DIY litigation in the employment tribunal: https://lag.org.uk/shop/products/202119/employment-tribunal-claims-tactics-and-precedents^

It's quite old now, and bits are out of date, but it's mostly still sound. All royalties go to the excellent Free Representation Unit in London, but it is quite expensive - if you need it, probably best borrow from your local library if you can.'

Thanks for the link, considering how many women are being sacked because of this batshittery it could come in handy too.

Thank you!

And they can't sue you for, say, defamation or something for taking a case against them?

You might have to pay their costs if you lose, is that right?

Yes it’s low risk of those things but no guarantee.

Most normal sensible people with a claim can try it.

It has to be a clear financial remedy for breach of law.

I am a lawyer - I understand people saying approach with caution. I’m not saying do not do it - but it’s not always a straightforward process and this stuff is still in a contested space.

However anyone who does it please let us know how it goes!

The SM guidance is about a letter before action to prompt settlement/apology/policy change. If that doesn’t work it’s Small Claims Court

It’s officially the “small claims track” in the County Court. A simplified County Court procedure for money claims under £10,000,

No you can never be sued for defamation for what you say about someone else in court. Anything put before a court - any claim, witness statement, anything said in court by a claimant, or witness, or defendant or judge or anyone else has absolute privilege and cannot form the basis of any suit. (If you think about it that’s the only thing that makes sense.)

Small claims track cases are awarded costs only in quite exceptional circumstances - this is discussed in the SM webpage. So even if you lose you will not have to pay any costs other than your own. And if you win you will not be awarded your own costs from the defendant. But if you represent yourself then you don’t have any costs beyond the court fee.

I don't think anyone that follows Sex Matters would have trouble reading these guidelines and making their own decisions at each pint in proceedings, based on their level of conviction, the degree of insult they've suffered, and their own personal circumstances. The target audience are self-selecting, their salient characteristic being that they are capable of critical though.

I am glad that I have this information at my disposal.

always worth a laugh https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1tsfq0t/found_this_linked_on_mumsnet_fighting_bigotry_in/

if I filled in a form to make a claim against the Science Museum or Park Run. Would my name become public?

Court proceedings would come at the end of the process, not at the start. Your name would be listed on hearings lists, but not the details of the claim, unless you or the other side published the details: think social media content like “I am going to court against the Science Museum” or “we, Park Run, are being sued by …”

Any hearing in court is open to the public and press. The Daily Mail would probably publish a short article about you if you won, and Pink News would probably do likewise, if you lost. Actually those two august journals would probably do the same either way.

It would make a decent headline, after all: Mumsnetter wins £300 damages against the Science Museum for seeing a trans-identifying man using the 5th floor women’s toilet: court agrees it left her distressed and ruined her day.”

Could I use a pseudonym?

No

You could ask for your name to be redacted, but you won't get it.

Crikey, that thread started from a position quite some way above the shark, and continued to ascend.

The Fonz would be proud

I started to read that thread, but found my brains started seeping out of my ears. You can't be filling your head with that nonsense!

The Free Speech Union represented me when I was banned from my local pub in 2024 for my gender critical views:

• for wearing a WDI hoodie and
• for standing as a Party of Women candidate in the 2024 General Election

I will copy and paste the full text here in case the FSU site gets hacked again. It is definitely worth reading if the offending business is a pub.

FSU member successfully fights back after being banned from pub for gender critical views
Frederick Attenborough
3 July 2024

The FSU scored a significant victory this week, helping one of our members successfully fight back after she was barred from her local pub for wearing a hoody emblazoned with a gender critical slogan.

Liz Panton is a gender critical feminist who believes that sex is an immutable, biological characteristic.

It was thanks to her longstanding commitment to campaigning for sex-based women’s rights that she decided to stand in the forthcoming General Election as the prospective parliamentary candidate for the Party of Women in the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.

Importantly for what follows, Ms Panton has also been a regular customer and attending musician at the Cumberland Arms in Newcastle since the suitably fitting year of 1984.

It was therefore something of an emotional shock when last month she received a formal, legalistic email out of the blue from the pub’s management team, barring her from the establishment.

In the email from the pub, dated 17th June, Ms Panton was informed: “On the 7th of May 2024 you came to the Cumberland wearing a hoody making a clear statement. Your name now appears as a parliamentary candidate to represent the Party of Women at Westminster, a party with which the Cumberland will not be associated. Accordingly you will no longer be allowed entry within the pub’s boundaries.”

The “clear statement” alluded to by the pub was a message inscribed on her hoody that read “Women’s Declaration International: WDI”, and was accompanied by a logo representing the same organisation. On the webpage of WDI it states that it is a “group of volunteer women from across the globe dedicated to protecting women’s sex-based rights”.

Liz then got in touch with our case team, and we took up the cudgels on her behalf.

In our letter to the pub, we pointed out that gender critical philosophical beliefs are a protected characteristic within section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, and that under section 29 of that Act service-providers are required not to discriminate in the provision of services because of a person’s protected characteristic(s).

This was relevant, we said, because it was perfectly clear from the pub’s correspondence with Ms Panton that the reason she had been barred was not because of any disorderly or drunken behaviour, but because the management objected to her protected philosophical beliefs.

On that basis, we went on to advise the pub that in addition to constituting a breach of the Equality Act, barring Ms Panton constituted a breach of the common law duty laid out in the case of Constantine v Imperial Hotels Limited ([1944] KB 693, [1944] 2 All ER 171), which holds that an innkeeper has an implied tortious duty to receive and entertain guests unless there is just cause to refuse.

The letter concluded with a demand that the decision to ban Ms Panton be reversed. Were the pub to decide to keep the ban in place, we advised that we would assist our member in considering the legal remedies available to her, which would include, without limitation, the right to seek injunctive relief as well as a claim for compensation for injury to feelings.

https://freespeechunion.org/archive/fsu-member-successfully-fights-back-after-being-banned-from-pub-for-gender-critical-views

The Race Relations Act 1965 and the Equalities Act 2010 came long after the common law established that pubs cannot refuse service without good reason. Not liking the colour of someone's skin or their political beliefs is not "just cause" for an "innkeeper" to bar someone or refuse to serve them.

🙏 What I do not know, and maybe lawyers on Mumsnet can advise:

• Whether the same principle applies to other service providers?
• Is this a common law basis for discrimination claims under the EA2010, or something completely different?

"Constantine v Imperial Hotels Limited ([1944] KB 693, [1944] 2 All ER 171), holds that an innkeeper has an implied tortious duty to receive and entertain guests unless there is just cause to refuse."

My IANAL understanding of this situation is that there is no need to establish any damage other than a breach of the law, in this case by denial of service:

Case Analysis and Case Comment on Constantine v. Imperial London Hotels Ltd.
Twinkle Bhandari
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
Volume 11 Issue 5, May 2022, p 1323-1327

Extracts:

"Injuria Sine Damnum
Meaning-Injury without any damage being caused. This maxim means the legal injury being caused to the plaintiff without any actual damage or loss.

Injury here refers to the infringement of legal right or violation of legal right of a person. Plaintiff can file a case against another party in the court because the law of torts protects the person from injuria (i.e. legal injury or infringement of some legal right of a person)."

"Detailed Understanding of the Maxim ‘Injuria Sine Damnum’
Injuria sine damnum refers to the situation where there is a violation of an absolute private right of a person without causing any actual loss/damage. Here Injuria refers to injury or a tortious act. In this case the defendant might have accidentally committed a tortious act, but if the act done by the defendant is tortious in nature in any case the action will lie. Damnum means damage and damage here refers to damage/ loss suffered in terms of money, loss of comfort, health or service etc. Injuria sine damnum is actionable per se i.e. even without the proof of any damage. Every individual has an absolute right on his property, to the immunity of his person and his liberty and if these rights of a person are violated the person has a right to bring the matter to the court even without any proof of actual damage being caused, that means in case of absolute right the injury i. e. the tortious act is completed the movement the right of any person is infringed irrespective of the fact that it is accompanied by actual damage or not."

"Judgment:
In this case Justice Birkett has delivered the judgment and said that it is assumed that it is the intimate duty of the innkeeper to give reasonable accommodation to the guests and denied the arguments raised by the defendant that the hotel has duly accomplished their duty by putting forward an offer to the plaintiff to lodge them to some other place. It was held that plaintiff‟s right was being infringed although no monetary damage was being caused to him but the infringement of his legal right was itself enough to avail the remedy. Thus in this case the plaintiff was entitled to nominal damage, a small sum of five guineas was awarded by court

In the above case the principle of injuria sine damnum was applicable since the actions of hotel authorities were tortious and indeed the plaintiff has suffered a legal injury for which remedy is provided by law. If legal right of any person is harmed or violated the person can bring an action and claim damages"

https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v11i5/SR22516142410.pdf