By Editor Robert Folker
A barrister friend of JK Rowling has won a payout after proving she was banned from a vets for her ‘gender critical’ views.
High profile former barrister Allison Bailey was banned from using her local vets’ practice over allegations she was ‘rude’ to staff.
She was ‘expelled’ from the client register of Palmerston Veterinary Group’s practice in Walthamstow, in January 2023 on grounds of her ‘unacceptable’ behaviour.
The vet’s receptionist complained that Ms Bailey’s ‘aggressive and intimidating’ conduct had left her in tears.
However, Ms Bailey denied being rude and sued, claiming the real reason she was told not to return and to find another vet was her gender-critical beliefs.
She claimed there was no justification for the vets’ ‘deregistering’ her, nor any basis for complaints about her alleged overbearing conduct
Ms Bailey took Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd, trading as Palmerston Veterinary Group, to court, seeking £25,000 in compensation.
Her lawsuit was based on claims her ‘protected characteristic’ rights of having a gender-critical belief were breached by the ban, which she blamed on former staff member Dr Liz Munro opposing her beliefs.
Today, Judge Andrew Holmes ruled in Ms Bailey’s favour at Central London County Court, handing her victory, with the amount due in damages to be assessed later.
He said that whilst Ms Bailey ‘can be seen by others as being direct to the point of rudeness,’ the vets’ practice had failed to prove that their staff were unaware of her views or her friendship with outspoken gender critic JK Rowling, and that those views played no part in the move to ban her.
‘There is strong evidence that Ms Bailey’s gender critical beliefs were known within the practice,’ he said.
‘I do not accept that Ms Munro was unaware of Ms Bailey’s friendship with JK Rowling.
‘Dr Munro revealed clearly that if she did not regard Ms Bailey as a bigot, it was only by a hair’s breadth.
‘It then falls to the defendant to show that the decision was not taken on the prohibited ground and that the prohibited ground played no part in the decision. The defendant fails.’
During the trial, Ms Bailey had insisted she had a good relationship with the practice throughout the 13 years they treated her two dogs, Poppy and Jonty.
The practice fought her claim saying the reason she was told not to come back was because her actions had triggered its ‘zero tolerance policy’ on abusive behaviour towards staff.
Ms Bailey’s barrister Akua Reindorf KC told the court the practice’s ‘culture’ included promotion of ‘trans activist material,’ saying for example that they displayed a Pride flag
The barrister also pointed out that Dr Munro had shared information to staff members about how to address trans clients by their preferred pronouns and other preferred language use.
In the witness box, Dr Munro replied: ‘I felt I was showing something that would be useful. I would never expect anybody to keep their views to themselves.
‘I don’t believe that I hold strong views. Am I some sort of radical pro-trans activist? No.
‘I believe I hold views which many people in society have and the feeling behind this was one of kindness, inclusivity and treating people as you wish to be treated.’
Dr Munro agreed with the barrister that she found gender-critical views ‘objectionable,’ adding: ‘It’s not a position I agree with, but I don’t know if I’d say someone was a bigot – maybe I would.’
Giving his ruling today, Judge Holmes said: ‘A “no further treatment letter” was sent to Ms Bailey by post on January 26 and was received by her on January 28.
‘It was sent in the name of Dr Liz Munro.
‘The central issue in this case is the degree to which, if at all, the decision to terminate Ms Bailey’s relationship with the practice was because of her gender critical beliefs.
‘In my judgment, there is evidence that Ms Bailey did not behave well towards the staff in the practice.
‘The incident on January 18, 2023, is perhaps the clearest evidence.
‘Ms Bailey is not violent or abusive, but she can be seen by others as being direct to the point of rudeness.
‘The interaction on January 18, 2023, was clearly unpleasant, but it was not violent.
‘If termination was a last resort, save where there is violence, then one would have expected there to have been a warning.
‘The practice was under no legal obligation to conduct some sort of disciplinary process. There was no contractual requirement to do so.
‘Provided the termination was not for a discriminatory reason, the practice was entitled to terminate the provision of its services with or without cause.
‘[However] there is strong evidence that Ms Bailey’s gender critical beliefs were known within the practice.’
The judge said that ‘gossip … that Ms Bailey was a friend of J.K. Rowling’ had ‘spread round the practice quickly’.
‘I do not accept evidence from any witness that they were unaware of this,’ he said.
‘Ms Rowling is one of the most famous people in the country. It is to me inconceivable that people would not talk about that in what is a relatively small business.
‘On balance, it is likely that Dr Munro knew about Ms Bailey’s gender critical beliefs before she was involved in taking the decision to terminate.’
In relation to the trans inclusive post Dr Munro had shared with staff after it appeared on her social media feed, the judge said ‘for such a post to have appeared on Dr Munro’s feed, one would anticipate that she must have shown some interest in pride or trans issues’.
‘Social media works by the use of algorithms,’ he continued.
‘Social media, in trying to keep the user engaged and thereby generating more revenue, targets the user with posts that it has calculated that the user will be interested in.
‘Dr Munro must have been engaged with posts on LGBTQ+ issues for the guide to language document to have appeared on her feed such that she could repost it and use it in the team meeting.
‘I was also unconvinced by Dr Munro’s evidence on her views concerning the sex/gender debate…[from] the answers she gave when asked about the detail of the guide to language document, it was clear on which side of the sex/gender debate Dr Munro is.
‘Just how strongly she feels was demonstrated when she hesitated over whether she regarded Ms Bailey’s views as bigoted. One would have anticipated a simple denial whilst saying they were not views she shared. Instead of which Dr Munro revealed clearly that if she did not regard Ms Bailey as a bigot, it was only by a hair’s breadth.
‘I do not accept that Ms Munro was unaware of Ms Bailey’s friendship with JK Rowling.
‘I accept that there is evidence that Ms Bailey could be difficult and aggressive with staff.
‘[But] I am satisfied that Ms Bailey has proved, on the balance of probabilities, facts from which I can conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the practice has committed an act of unlawful discrimination.
‘It then falls to the defendant to show that the decision was not taken on the prohibited ground and that the prohibited ground played no part in the decision. The defendant fails.
‘It seems to me that it is difficult to accept the evidence that the decision was taken solely on the basis of Ms Bailey’s behaviour.’
The amount of damages Ms Bailey is due and who pays the costs of the case will be decided at a later date.