A barrister who tweeted criticism of the LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall’s position on trans rights was unlawfully discriminated against and victimised as a result of her views, an employment tribunal has found.
Allison Bailey, a founder of the gender-critical group LGB Alliance, sued Garden Court Chambers (GCC) and Stonewall, claiming that the latter had instructed or induced discrimination by her chambers.
A judge-led panel agreed with Bailey that she was subjected to direct discrimination by GCC on the basis of her gender-critical views, previously found to be a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act in the Maya Forstater case.
The panel, led by the employment judge Sarah Goodman, said GCC was wrong to publish a statement saying Bailey was being investigated in relation to her tweets after complaints, including from Stonewall, that they were transphobic, and to subsequently conclude that two of the tweets were likely to have breached a barrister’s core duties. However, it rejected her claim against Stonewall.
GCC, which was a member of the charity’s diversity champions scheme, argued that Bailey’s tweets went beyond expression of her gender-critical views and into abuse.
But the panel, in its judgment handed down on Thursday, said: “We concluded that her beliefs, not just about gender self-identity but about the pernicious effect of Stonewall’s campaign promoting gender self-identity, were genuine. We also found that these amounted to beliefs, not just opinions which might change with further evidence.”
The panel rejected Bailey’s claim that GCC’s clerks withheld work from her as a result of the discrimination, but awarded her £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings.
After GCC’S investigation, Bailey was asked to delete two tweets but refused to do so.
In one, she tweeted thanking the Times for “fairly & accurately reporting on the appalling levels of intimidation, fear & coercion that are driving the @stonewalluk trans self-id agenda”.
In the other she said the charity had hired “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”.
Responding to the decision, Bailey, who crowdfunded more than £500,000 for legal costs, said she had taken the case to bring Stonewall’s methods “into the public eye”.
She said: “This is a vindication for all those who, like me, object to the erasure of biological sex, of women, and of same-sex attraction as material realities. It represents judicial recognition of the abuse waged against us.”
Bailey had also claimed indirect discrimination, arguing that the gender-critical movement “is comprised predominantly of women and disproportionately of lesbians” and so these groups were more likely to be disadvantaged by the chambers’ policies.
But the panel rejected this claim. It said it “could not conclude that Garden Court Chambers as a whole had a practice of treating gender-critical beliefs as bigoted”. It also said that even if there were such a practice, there was insufficient evidence to show that women or lesbians were disproportionately affected.
GCC said it was considering appealing against the judgment. A spokesperson said: “We have maintained throughout that our members, quite reasonably, hold differing views in the complex debate around trans and sex-based rights. Our primary aim throughout has always been to uphold our values and maintain a workplace that is inclusive and welcoming to all.”
A Stonewall spokesperson said it was pleased that the claim against it was rejected. “The case heard by the employment tribunal did not accurately reflect our intentions and our influence on organisations,” they said. “Leaders within organisations are responsible for the organisational culture and the behaviour of their employees and workers. Stonewall’s resources, support and guidance is just one set of inputs they use to help them as they consider how best to meet the needs of their own organisation.”
