Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others
An editor has nominated this article for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it. |
| Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and others | |
|---|---|
| Court | Central London Employment Tribunal |
| Decided | 25 April 2022 |
| Citation | Employment Tribunal: Ms A Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Ors [2022] UKET 2202172_2020 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed to | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subsequent actions | Appeal argued 14 May 2024 Decided 24 July 2024 Case dismissed.[1] |
| Related actions | Court of Appeal application granted, 11 December 2024[2] |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting |
|
Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and others is a UK employment case in 2022 brought by Allison Bailey against her former employer Garden Court Chambers and Stonewall.[3] The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that Garden Court Chambers had discriminated against her in concluding that two of her personal tweets potentially breached her core duties as a barrister and awarded £22,000 in damages, but dismissed all other claims with regards to lost income or work opportunities due to the complaint. The Tribunal also dismissed all of her claims against Stonewall.
Bailey unsuccessfully appealed the claim against Stonewall at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, with the appeal being dismissed in July 2024. In December 2024, the Court of Appeal granted Bailey permission to further appeal against the ruling in favour of Stonewall.[2]
Background
[edit]In October 2019, Bailey co-founded the organization LGB Alliance, an advocacy group which opposes Stonewall's policies on transgender rights.[4][5][6][7] She acclaimed the newly formed group on Twitter and said that "gender extremism is about to meet its match."[4]
Her employer's chambers, Garden Court Chambers, announced it would launch an internal investigation after it received complaints alleging transphobia regarding her social media use and her involvement with the LGB Alliance.[6] She was asked to remove two tweets, one thanking The Times for "fairly & accurately reporting on the appalling levels of intimidation, fear & coercion that are driving the @stonewalluk trans self-id agenda" and one stating "Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male-bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them."[8]
Bailey alleged that Stonewall was in breach of the Equality Act 2010. She claimed victimisation and discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or sexual orientation against Garden Court, and that Stonewall instructed, caused or induced that unlawful conduct.[9][10]
Employment tribunal
[edit]The hearing of Bailey's employment tribunal case began on 25 April 2022, considering a number of claims against Garden Court Chambers and against Stonewall.[11] The tribunal's decision was published in July 2022.
In terms of the claims against Garden Court Chambers, the tribunal ruled in favour of her claim that Garden Court Chambers had discriminated against her by tweeting that complaints against her tweets would be investigated. It also ruled in favour of her claims that Garden Court Chambers had discriminated against her and victimised her by concluding in that investigation that two of her tweets had potentially breached the core duties of barristers. One of the tweets was about the concept of a "cotton ceiling" and the other regarded her belief that Stonewall has a dangerous agenda regarding gender self-identification.[12] She was consequentially awarded £22,000 in damages for injury to feelings.[13]
The tribunal ruled against her other claims against Garden Court Chambers, ruling that she had not lost income or work opportunities due to the complaints, nor that that Garden Court Chambers had a systemic policy of treating gender-critical beliefs as bigoted. The tribunal ruled against all her claims against Stonewall, ruling that Stonewall did not influence the complaints procedure or the policies of Garden Court Chambers.[14][15] In July 2023, the employment tribunal ordered Garden Court Chambers to pay £20,000 legal costs to Bailey because of its "unreasonable conduct" during the case.[16]
Employment Appeal Tribunal
[edit]Bailey appealed against the ruling on the claims against Stonewall.[17] The appeal was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in May 2024, and the appeal was dismissed in July 2024.[1][18]
Court of Appeal
[edit]In December 2024, the Court of Appeal granted Bailey permission to appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision, as ordered by Rt Hon Lord Justice Singh.[2] In giving permission for the appeal, Lord Justice Singh said, "The grounds have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal."[19]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b "Allison Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Others: [2024] EAT 119" (PDF). gov.co.uk. 24 July 2024.
- ^ a b c "Doyle Clayton client Allison Bailey granted permission by the Court of Appeal". www.doyleclayton.co.uk. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
- ^ Ms A Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Ors [2022] UKET 2202172
- ^ a b Hellen, Nicholas (28 October 2019). "Lesbian barrister: my bosses bowed to transgender 'hate mob'". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 7 March 2021. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
- ^ Hellen, Nicholas (22 September 2019). "'Anti-women' trans policy may split Stonewall". The Sunday Times. London. Archived from the original on 1 February 2021. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
- ^ a b Wakefield, Lily (26 October 2019). "Lawyer supporting anti-trans LGB Alliance to be investigated by law firm". PinkNews. Archived from the original on 8 June 2021. Retrieved 8 June 2021.
- ^ "Lesbian barrister investigated over transgender views". The Times. London. 28 October 2019. Archived from the original on 2 July 2020. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
- ^ Siddique, Haroon (19 June 2022). "Allison Bailey case is a microcosm of the wider debate about transgender rights". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 9 December 2024.
- ^ Rose, Neil (12 March 2021). "Chambers and Stonewall fail to strike out barrister's discrimination claim". Legal Futures. Archived from the original on 23 October 2021. Retrieved 23 October 2021.
- ^ "The case against Stonewall". Allison Bailey. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
- ^ Webber, Ashleigh (26 April 2022). "Philosophical belief: barrister's tribunal claim against Stonewall begins". Personnel Today. Archived from the original on 26 April 2022. Retrieved 27 April 2022.
- ^ "Barrister wins discrimination case against law firm over gender critical views". The Independent. 27 July 2022. Archived from the original on 27 July 2022. Retrieved 27 July 2022.
- ^ Faragher, Jo (27 July 2022). "Barrister wins gender critical belief discrimination claim". Personnel Today. Archived from the original on 27 July 2022. Retrieved 27 July 2022.
- ^ O'Thomson, Jess (27 July 2022). "Bailey – a big relief for trans people but it's not all good news". Trans Safety Network. Archived from the original on 27 July 2022. Retrieved 28 July 2022.
- ^ "Judiciary report" (PDF). Judiciary.uk. 27 July 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 July 2022. Retrieved 27 July 2022.
- ^ Bodkin, Henry (8 July 2023). "Gender-critical barrister wins top payout as judge issues stinging criticism of chambers". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
- ^ Ames, Jonathan (22 September 2022). "Allison Bailey's appeal takes on Stonewall". The Times. Archived from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 24 September 2022.
- ^ Faragher, Jo (24 July 2024). "Gender-critical barrister loses appeal against Stonewall". personneltoday.com. Personnel Today. Retrieved 26 July 2024.
- ^ Rose, Neil (12 December 2024). "CA to consider whether Stonewall "induced" chambers' discrimination". Legal Futures. Retrieved 12 December 2024.