Understanding Allison Bailey's claim against Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers

This is a  summary of some of the key particulars of the claim being made by Allison Bailey at her Employment Tribunal, prepared to assist our readers. The respondents, Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers reject the claim. 

This is not a legal note and no reliance should be placed upon it. For more on the Equality Act 2010, see the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) website.

Overview of claim

• Stonewall (1st Respondent) caused Garden Court Chambers (GCC)  (2nd Respondent) to:

  • directly discriminate against Allison Bailey because of her gender critical beliefs; or

  • to victimise her; or

  • to indirectly discriminate against her on the basis of sex/sexual orientation 

• GCC directly discriminated against Allison because of her gender critical beliefs (or alternatively victimised her) and/or indirectly discriminated against her on the basis of sex/sexual orientation 

Relevant legislation

The Equality 2010  Act: Relevant sections include s13 (Direct discrimination), s19 (Indirect discrimination), s27 (Victimisation) and  s111 (Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions).

Victimisation and Protected Acts

Victimisation is defined in the 2010 Act as:

Treating someone badly because they have done a ‘protected act’ (or because you believe that a person has done or is going to do a protected act).

A ‘protected act’ is summarised  here by EHRC as:

• Making a claim or complaint of discrimination (under the Equality Act).

• Helping someone else to make a claim by giving evidence or information.

• Making an allegation that you or someone else has breached the Act.

• Doing anything else in connection with the Act.
  

Allison Bailey’s Protected Acts

Allison’s claim is based on the following:

1. Allison’s email of 14 December 2018 – This was her “reply all” email to chambers expressing unhappiness with GCC decision to become a Stonewall Diversity Champion.

2. Allison’s tweets – A number of Allison’s tweets during 2019 which expressed her gender critical beliefs are put forward as protected acts.  These include:
   - a) Cotton ceiling/Morgan Page tweet 
   - b) LGB Alliance launch tweet
   - c) Tweet referencing an article in The Times by Nicholas Hellen that was critical of Stonewall

   Stonewall’s complaint against tweets a) and c) was upheld by GCC following investigation by Maya Sikand QC, see detriment 4 below.
   

3. Allison’s response in relation to the upheld complaint in respect of tweets a) and c).

4. Allison’s Subject Access Requests (SARs) dated 30 January 2020 – Allison requested document disclosure from both Stonewall and GCC.

5. Allison’s “Early Conciliation” notice to ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). Claimants are required to do make this notice before making an employment tribunal claim (You must tell ACAS).

Detriments

If self employed barristers alleged discrimination by their chambers, they can bring a claim to an Employment Tribunal. To succeed in her claim Allison must prove a detriment, i.e. that she was treated in an unfair manner by GCC.

Detriment 1: withholding instructions and work during 2019 – Allison argues she was not properly clerked and her work suffered due to her gender critical beliefs.

Detriment 2: GCC publishing response tweets –  The GCC twitter account published two tweets in response to concerns raised on twitter following Allison’s LGB Alliance launch tweet. It is argued these were sent because of prejudice against Allison due to her beliefs and implicitly endorsed criticism against her.

Response tweet 1 We are investigating concerns raised about Allison Bailey’s comments in line with our complaints/BSB policies. We take these concerns v seriously & will take all appropriate action. Her views are expressed in a personal capacity & do not represent a position adopted by Garden Court.

Response tweet 2 Garden Court Chambers is fiercely proud of its long-standing commitment to promoting equality, fighting discrimination and defending human rights.

Detriment 3: Stonewall’s complaint to GCC. It is alleged this was solicited by barrister Michelle Brewer acting as agent of GCC in her capacity as a member of GCC and head of the GCC Trans Rights Working Group (TRWG).

Detriment 4: GCC upholding the complaint – this is argued to be a detriment due to inadequacies of the process and because it was influenced by prejudice about Allison’s beliefs. 

Detriment 5: response to the SARs – it is argued that an inadequate response to the Subject Access Request made by Allison was due to her beliefs.