Religion or belief discrimination
Daniel Barnett
I represent businesses in high-stakes employment litigation and invest in HR consultancies. I am a presenter on LBC Radio, qualified as a barrister, and train lawyers & HR Professionals in employment law.
Summary:?Stonewall did not induce or cause chambers to discriminate against barrister because of her gender critical views.
In the case of?Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited?and others,?the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered section 111?Equality Act 2010.?This section makes it unlawful for a person to instruct, cause or induce someone to discriminate against, harass or victimise another person, or to attempt to do so.
The Claimant was a tenant of Garden Court Chambers (GCC). GCC signed up to the Diversity Partners programme run by Stonewall.?The Claimant held gender critical views. She tweeted about her objection to what she saw as Stonewall’s ‘trans-extremism’ and supporting the LGB Alliance, which promoted gender critical principles. GCC received a number of complaints as a result, specifically about a viewed incompatibility of her views with trans rights. Stonewall also made a complaint. GCC made a public statement that it would investigate. As a result of the investigation, GCC held that two of the tweets should be deleted.
The tribunal found that the announcement of the investigation and its outcome were both detriments suffered by the Claimant because of her protected gender critical beliefs. The tribunal did not find Stonewall was liable for inducing the discrimination.
The Claimant appealed the finding in relation to Stonewall. The EAT, dismissing the appeal, set out its understanding of causing or inducing claims under s111?EqA:
1. A claimant must show that,?but for?the intervention of person A (here, Stonewall), the act of discrimination by B (GCC) would not have occurred; and
领英推荐
2. Having regard to all the facts, making person A (Stonewall) liable for that discrimination would be ‘fair or reasonable or just’, those adjectives being interchangeable.?
The EAT held that responsibility for determining the complaint in a discriminatory way lay only with GCC. For that reason, although Stonewall’s complaint was the ‘occasion’ for it happening (and so could be regarded as causing it in a ‘but for’ sense), and although there was a nexus between the Claimant’s protected views and the making of the complaint, it would not be reasonable to hold Stonewall liable for that discriminatory outcome.