Stonewall can get you fired
Drat.
Firstly, the judgment gives permission for organisations like Stonewall to procure the withdrawal of employment from people whose protected characteristics they disagree with, if this can be framed as a “protest”. This seems to go directly against the terms of the Equality Act.…
— Allison Bailey (@BluskyeAllison) July 24, 2024
Thirdly, the judgment relies on the concept of “fair or reasonable or just”. This is surprising because the judge heard no submissions on this from either party in the 2-day Appeal, and it didn’t feature at all in the 117-page employment appeal judgment or the 23-day employment…
— Allison Bailey (@BluskyeAllison) July 24, 2024
Fifthly, my case is about direct discrimination, but the judgment also considers indirect discrimination. There, it appears to establish that workplace policies of “Stonewall Law” through the Diversity Champions Scheme – e.g. the removal of single sex spaces – DOES in fact…
— Allison Bailey (@BluskyeAllison) July 24, 2024
“DOES in fact generate legal liability for Stonewall. This is a hollow victory for them.”
I hope to expand upon these five points in greater detail in due course. I will now consider next steps carefully with my legal team. In the meantime, thank you to everyone who has supported me. I am very sorry that we have been unable to prevail on this occasion.
7/7END
— Allison Bailey (@BluskyeAllison) July 24, 2024
Drat.
It certainly appears to me that the judgement is faulty, and could be appealed. After all, it opens the door to any judge being sacked because a bunch of people protest his employment. This makes no sense, and probably goes against both equality legislation and employment laws.