Thank you for writing this and making it available to free subscribers. I hope that Allison Bailey's upcoming case rules in the way you set out, as this will be very helpful to those of us trying to protect single sex spaces within tiny organisations and without recourse to litigation.
I would argue that the "fair just and reasonable" limb is still an unnecessary gloss on the statutory test. The question should be whether they intended B to do the act that amounted to the detriment or something similar to that act. So in this case the fact that the complaint was made with the intent that GCC sanction AB or distance itself from her because of the expression of her protected belief ought to be enough to impose liability.
Thank you for writing this and making it available to free subscribers. I hope that Allison Bailey's upcoming case rules in the way you set out, as this will be very helpful to those of us trying to protect single sex spaces within tiny organisations and without recourse to litigation.
Really excellent post. Thank you. I have just subscribed.
Just brilliant! Thank you Michael.
Excellent post. Thank you for all your work Michael 🙂
I would argue that the "fair just and reasonable" limb is still an unnecessary gloss on the statutory test. The question should be whether they intended B to do the act that amounted to the detriment or something similar to that act. So in this case the fact that the complaint was made with the intent that GCC sanction AB or distance itself from her because of the expression of her protected belief ought to be enough to impose liability.
the only interpretation of what Kirrin emailed is surely "sack the terf or you'll regret it!"