The barrister Allison Bailey has lost her Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case against LGBTQ+ lobby group Stonewall, having argued that the charity tried to silence her for tweeting about her gender-critical beliefs and her view that it was driving a “dangerous” agenda around gender self-identification.
In 2022 Bailey brought an Employment Tribunal (ET) claim of discrimination and victimisation against her then employer, Garden Court Chambers (GCC), as well as Stonewall, the charity behind the controversial Diversity Champions Programme, which GCC joined in November 2018.
Her appeal case centred on a complaint made to GCC by Stonewall regarding her involvement with the LGB Alliance, a gender critical campaign group she helped to found in 2019, and which opposes the charity’s view that trans rights should effectively take precedence over women’s rights in policy and law.
Stonewall’s then Head of Trans Inclusion complained directly to GCC about 11 of Bailey’s tweets, at one point remarking: “For [GCC] to continue associating with a barrister who is actively campaigning for a reduction in trans rights and equality, while also specifically targeting our staff with transphobic abuse on a public platform, puts us in a difficult position with yourselves.”
Bailey says that because of this complaint she was given less work, leading to a fall in income the following year.
Faced with a growing, trans activist induced Twitter storm, GCC panicked and “picked sides”, as the ET ruling put it, with the firm’s Heads of Chambers choosing “to prefer the view that the claimant was in the wrong and that her tweets should be investigated, because there was a lot of opposition to the views expressed in them”.
In response to the online mob – and in breach of a confidentiality obligation – GCC tweeted:
We are investigating concerns raised about Allison Bailey’s comments in line with our complaints/BSB [Bar Standards Board] policies. We take these concerns very seriously and will take all appropriate action. Her views are expressed in a personal capacity and do not represent a position adopted by Garden Court. Garden Court Chambers is proud of its longstanding commitment to promoting equality, fighting discrimination and defending human rights.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sending of this response tweet was one of a number of detriments which, in her ET claim, Bailey contended were inflicted on her by reason of her holding protected beliefs.
During the ET hearing itself, neither Stonewall nor GCC disputed that gender critical views were a protected characteristic – that point had already been established in the landmark employment tribunal case Forstater vs CGD European & Others.
GCC’s claim had specifically to do with the allegedly “inflammatory” language used by Bailey in relation to Stonewall’s gender ideology – or “gender extremism” as she described it in the initial tweet that led GCC to launch an investigation. Its argument was that the words Allison had chosen to use while expressing her views weren’t protected by the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’). The law distinguishes “between a protected belief and the manner in which it is expressed,” as Andrew Hochhauser QC, acting for GCC, claimed in a written statement. “There is no licence to abuse.”
UK: Gender critical barrister loses appeal against Stonewall
