The barrister Allison Bailey has lost her appeal against Stonewall, a charity accused of silencing her due to her gender-critical views. This decision has significant implications for the ongoing debate over free speech and the influence of progressive ideologies in the workplace.
Bailey, who is a lesbian, initially brought claims against her employer, Garden Court Chambers (GCC), and Stonewall after the latter complained about her association with the LGB Alliance Group. This group opposes Stonewall’s stance that transgender women should be legally recognised as women. Bailey argued that GCC victimised her for her social media posts, in which she criticised Stonewall’s agenda on gender self-identification.
One key incident involved Bailey objecting to a male Stonewall employee conducting a workshop on “overcoming the cotton ceiling.” This workshop aimed at addressing the issue of men who identify as women or non-binary overcoming lesbians’ sexual boundaries, a concept Bailey found troubling and shared her concerns about publicly.
In 2020, Bailey lodged a claim for indirect discrimination and victimisation. Although she won her claim against GCC in 2021, with the employment tribunal recognising that she had been discriminated against and victimised by her colleagues, the tribunal did not find Stonewall culpable. They concluded that Stonewall did not legally “instruct, cause or influence” the discrimination Bailey faced, leading her to appeal this decision.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal recently upheld the initial ruling, asserting that Stonewall did not act unlawfully in its complaints to Bailey’s employer. In response, Bailey expressed disappointment and concern over the judgment, suggesting that it effectively allows organisations like Stonewall to pressure employers into dismissing employees based on protected characteristics if framed as a “protest.”
Bailey’s case highlights a broader conflict where organisations can ostensibly infringe on individuals’ rights under the guise of diversity and inclusion initiatives. Bailey criticised Stonewall, once a defender of lesbian rights, for its role in limiting workplace freedoms. She warned that this judgment might expose Stonewall to legal challenges regarding indirect discrimination, particularly concerning their “Stonewall Law” policies implemented through the Diversity Champions Scheme, which include removing single-sex spaces.
This ruling has sparked debate among legal commentators and advocates of free speech, who see it as a troubling precedent that could embolden organisations to suppress dissenting views under the banner of progressive causes.
For more detailed coverage, please refer to the original article by Jo Faragher on Personnel Today: [Gender-critical barrister loses appeal against Stonewall](https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/gender-critical-stonewall/).
Source: https://zapier.com/
Original title: Allison Bailey Loses Appeal Against Stonewall in Gender-Critical Case
Author: Ralph Hawthorn