The barrister Allison Bailey has lost her appeal against Stonewall after she claimed the charity tried to silence her for her gender-critical views.
Bailey first launched claims against her employer, Garden Court Chambers, and Stonewall after the charity complained to GCC about her involvement with the LGB Alliance Group, which opposes Stonewall’s view that transgender women are women in the eyes of the law.
She said that GCC had victimised her for tweeting about her views, and her belief that Stonewall was driving a “dangerous” agenda around gender self-identification.
She had objected to a male Stonewall employee holding a workshop on “overcoming the cotton ceiling”, which focused on men who identified as women or non-binary overcoming the sexual boundaries of lesbians, and shared her views on social media.
Allison Bailey timeline
Philosophical belief: barrister’s tribunal against Stonewall begins
Bailey, who herself is a lesbian, lodged a claim for indirect discrimination and victimisation in 2020, but in 2021, a judge agreed that she would be able to make further arguments for discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief after the landmark case of Maya Forstater vs CGD Europe & Others.
She won her claim against GCC, with the employment tribunal agreeing that she had been discriminated against and victimised by her chambers colleagues for her views.
However, the tribunal failed to find that Stonewall satisfied the legal test of “instructing, causing or influencing” the discrimination she experienced, and she lodged an appeal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has not upheld the appeal, finding that Stonewall did not act unlawfully in complaining to her employer.
Judge Bourne said in his judgment that Bailey had fallen “well short of showing that if Stonewall either induced or attempted to induce GCC to inflict a detriment on her, the inducement was to inflict the detriment on hrounds of her protected belief rather than because of an allegedly objectional manifestation of her belief”.
I am sorry that I have not succeeded in my Appeal against Stonewall.
I am grateful to The Hon. Mr Justice Bourne for his reasoned judgment, although I am of course disappointed with the result.
I will consider the judgment with my legal team, but my initial view is that there…
— Allison Bailey (@BluskyeAllison) July 24, 2024
Writing on X, Bailey said legal commentators would be shocked by the decision. She added that she would consider the judgment with her legal team as there were a number of aspects of it which were of concern.
She said: “The judgment gives permission for organisations like Stonewall to procure the withdrawal of employment from people whose protected characteristic they disagree with, if this can be framed as a ‘protest’.
“This seems to go directly against the terms of the Equality Act. Sight should not be lost of the fact that Stonewall, a charity set up to protect the legal rights of lesbians like me, should be the ones to limit workplace rights like this. How far they have fallen.”
She added that while she had lost her appeal, the judgment could open up Stonewall to legal liability in the area of indirect discrimination.
“My case is about direct discrimination, but the judgment also considers indirect discrimination. There, it appears to establish that workplace policies of ‘Stonewall Law’ which are implemented through the Diversity Champions Scheme, such as the removal of single-sex spaces, DOES in fact generate legal liability,” she said.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Employee relations opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more Employee Relations jobs
