Thread by @tribunaltweets

The ET of Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council is expected to resume this morning, 19 May 2026, at 10 am.

Our complete coverage of the hearing to date can be found on our Substack here: open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…

Ms Young is taking her former employer, Manchester City Council, to employment tribunal for unfair dismissal on the grounds of religion or belief. Ms Young is a Catholic, holds gender critical beliefs. She was dismissed, among other grounds, for social media activity.

We are a collective of volunteer journalists and are not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio above) which funds our digital & some travel costs. We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcript of proceedings.

A motion adopted by Manchester City Council has been frequently referred to in proceedings. It is included on our Substack in full and in the following tweets.

Abbreviations
LY/C - Lorna Young, claimant

MCC/R - Manchester City Council, respondent

NR - Nathan Roberts, barrister for C

AP - Annie Powell, solicitor for C

AM - Aileen McColgan, barrister for R

EJ/ - Employment Judge Dunlop

GC - gender critical beliefs, sex realist

GI - gender identity or gender identity belief, a person’s internal sense of gender: male, female, both, neither, or another category.
DD direct discrimination
SS same sex or single sex
WESC Women & Equalities select committee

TRAHR trans rights are human rights
LM line manager
BC Bev Craig, council leader
Hx & D - harassment and discrimination
Ix - investigation
RTW return to work
OH occupational health
TU - trade union
GG - GalwayGirl (C’s anonymous X account)
SC/SK - Sharmila Kar, C's line manager

JO - Jenny Osbourne
Dx - discrimination
SW - Stonewall or Stephen Whittle
BY - Barry Young
AMR - absence management review
HMD - Hella Monroy-Dominguez HR Officer
SOSR - Some other substantial reason
PCP - policy, criterion or practice

Back at 10 am.

Message from the clerk this morning - delay to proceedings because of late disclosure to C. Unclear if additional late disclosure or included in the bundle delivered late on Sunday evening.
Mentioned half past 10, then quarter past 10.

Clerk is back, clarified half past 10.

In a previous case covered by this reporter we learned about barrister time. Barrister told the judge that she needed '10 minutes' to complete with a witness. The judge replied 'is that 10 minutes in barrister time or 10 minutes by the clock'.
Offered without comment.

Participants are entering the meeting room, we will begin shortly.

J - good morning, sorry about the delay, relates to more disclosure
AM - sorry, more disclosure
NR - I regard all this as completely reprehensible conduct of the litigation but I'm going to crack on nonetheless. If I'd had the docs I would have used in xexam.

NR - but not proportionate to recall witnesses.
J - how many pages
NR - about 90 pages
J - when provided
NR - about 9:30 am
J - we often have unrep'd Cs in tribunals and this would be a big disadvantage, Ms Y is rep'd but it still may be a disadvantage to her

I will hear motions on this as and when relevant. It is important and I don't want to minimise. AM - your witness.
[AM calls Angela Harrington (AH), affirms, judge explains timetable, breaks available, AM takes AH to wit state, confirms truthful etc]
AM - I have no qs but NR

will
NR - good morning can I take you to all of the docs related to the appeal,
J - are you okay with electronic bundle
AH - yes
NR - doc 1, and then the next on page X,
[discussion of how e bundle works]
AH - what was that again
NR - an email chain about the email, you can read

AH - yes
NR - only other doc we have is outcome letter from you
AH yes
NR - is that the extent of disclosure we have on appeal
AH - yes
NR - is that because remainder of docs are asserted to be covered by privilege
AH - I don't understand
J - explains privilege to AH,

AH - yes, although I relied on the original bundle for the appeal
NR - we, the C, don't have any record of what docs you were sent
AH - I'm not sure
NR - we have 3 docs, none show what docs you looked at
AH - yes
NR - was your outcome letter looked at or reviewed by lawyers

AH - no..
NR - no legal review
AH - HR looked at outcome letter
NR - that would suggest that there are more docs not covered by privilege but that's to take up with your team. The appeal was to be conducted in accordance with ACAS guidance, speedy, why did it take 3 months

AH - the outcome letter was provided shortly after the appeal was heard
NR - your appeal outcome was not rec'd until after the claim was brought so your appeal outcome is not an act of hx or discrim, just laying out the chronology here
NR - let's to last para

NR - 'I also considered.....uphold original decision to terminate on SOSR' so you agreed with the entirety of the dismissal letter
AH - yes
NR - you say dismissal was for SOSR, not misconduct what was that reason
AH - breach of trust between C and other employees

NR - so a breach of trust caused by LY conduct
AH - continuation of employment in LY roles was substantial enough
NR - I didn't understand that
AH - the conduct of how LY expressed her views and her role as EDI manager, and the fact that she had already expressed those views

NR - Am I hearing this for the time - was she dismissed for things she might do in the future
AH - no, we didn't have confidence that she would modify behaviour, the dismissal doc was around how she expressed her view
NR - you just told us it was about what she might do

AH - it's not the primary reason, a secondary reason
NR - why did you refer to it
AH - because it's background
NR - so let's go back to the main reason, it was about her conduct, why is that not a conduct dismissal
AH - [now turning head away from microphone hard to hear]

NR - you are now telling me that C was dismissed for conduct, shouldn't that have been a disciplinary (dx) process
AH - I was simply hearing the appeal,
NR - because it was labelled SOSR the C was denied the right to a secondary appeal to council members
AH - that is the policy

NR - on to what you knew about C's mental health, all of the 4 dismissal tweets were sent in period October to February
AH - accept that
NR - the C was asked to write something during Covid that was sent to all staff, did you read it
AH - I may have
NR - can I invite you to

read first 3 paras.
[AH reading]

AH - I have read this
NR - were you aware of isolation challenges C had experienced during lockdown
AH - yes
NR - now to OH report, I believe you did have this, this was advice that R expressly sought about connection between health and tweeting, can I ask you to

read the 4th para and the 2nd para after that.
NR - you had this info when you made this decision
AH - yes
NR - by Oct 2022 the C also had the stress of the dx procedure and her LM responsibilities were removed from her, you knew this
AH - yes

NR - by the time you made your decision Shamila Kar had publicly adopted opposition to GC beliefs on her Linkedin profile
AH - yes
NR - she had an EDI role at MCC, although employed by NHS
AH - yes
NR - and has adopted a public position on this issue

NR - now a specific post that SK had liked, give you a chance to read it
[AH reading]
NR - had a chance to read
AH - yes
NR - do you accept that this expresses derogatory statements about GC views or GC orgs
AH - accept some criticisms but context important

NR - something that SK reposted, worth a read, TRAHR,
AH - yes
NR - and then this short piece is critical of FWS judgment, says so in final para, and preceding para
AH - [struggling with bundle]
J - can you read it out NR
NR - [reading rapidly, 'seeks to use the law to harm

others'] I accept you can't see that, I'm going to find a doc more easy to read. Main bundle, tweet SK liked, C drew your attention to this, 'wants TERF to wake up' do you accept that TERF is a slur
AH - in some circumstances but not all
NR - it can be easily seen as a slur when

someone ties it to racism and Christian colonialism.
AH - yes
NR - C also drew your attention to website where TERF is used as a violent slur
AH - yes.
NR - C made you aware of Barry Young's tweets didn't she
AH - yes
NR - he's clearly identifiable as EDI officer

AH - he is identifiable as employee
NR - C drew your attention to 2 types of tweets, gender critical cult and GLCs - gender critical loswers
AH - yes
NR - back to dismissal letter, Miss O analysed the tweets, and there are refs to inclusive workplace for trans and NBs

AH - yes I see
NR - reference to another document
AH - yes
NR - that was attached to the dismissal letter
AH - yes
NR - that's the doc she was referring to, its about the MCC motion on TRAHR
AH - yes
NR - it is not part of Rs case that C did anything at work that made

it un-inclusive for trans people
AH - not it was not
NR - I'm going to ask you about the tweets now.
J - [asks AH to move microphone closer]
NR - you accept that C was dismissed for 4 tweets,
AH - yes
NR - 1st 'people like this should not be teachers' what did this mean

AH - that she said trans people shouldn't be teachers'
NR - do you accept now that she did not mean that
AH - she gave an explanation but anyone reading that tweet would think that
NR - now to draft guidance on RSE in schools, read para 45, 46 please

NR - [now reading out para 46, teach bio sex, not contested theories like sex is a spectrum, use appropriate materials] Let's go look at the tweet again.
Its not stand alone, a teacher discusses coming out as trans to elementary school pupils. What's your understanding of

elementary school age.
AH - primary school
NR - GC people profoundly object to the idea that medication does not change a man into a woman, and that children should not be taught that. Can you accept that a GC person can profoundly and reasonably disagree with this.

AH - can accept disagreement, but it's how it is expressed.
NR - it is clear from her tweet that she is disagreeing with what the teacher has said, not that the teacher is trans
AH - that's not how I read it
NR - can you accept that the first sentence is unobjectionable

AH - yes
NR - so you're disagreeing with the word 'this'
AH - in its entirety
NR - do you accept that best person to say what she meant is the C
AH - yes
NR - do you accept that her intentions were NOT to say the trans people should not be teachers

AH - yes but that's not how it read
NR - you accept that if that's what she meant the tweet is not offensive
AH - it can be read differently
NR - now on to 2nd tweet, about vicar and non-binary. Did you take advice on whether NB is a PC under the EA.

AH - no
NR - did you read the article
AH - at the time
NR - article about a vicar named Bingo, can you see white box on bottom left, Britain's first NB CofE priest. Can you see the play button for the video....
AH - yes
NR - so Bingo had done an interview about their identity

with BBC Radio, Bingo vocal about gender issues on social media 'God loves sparkly eyeshadow'.
AH - yes
NR - we can see in headline and 2nd para and Bingo finds support for NB identity in the bible, genesis,
AH - nods
NR - the tweet itself, 1st NB priest, art posted on twitter

NR - do you accept from the article that the vicar was not shy of self promotion
AH - well I don't know from one article
NR - from this article - giving interviews, not shy about promoting their views
AH - well if article is true
NR - says this from God's guidance

NR - do you accept that a Catholic might be disturbed by this, and that the devil is the source of evil according to Catholics, and that the C here is objecting to this person's religious views
AH - I think it was badly expressed
NR - C expressed regret about how worded

NR - so why did you include in dismissal case
AH - it's inappropriate and they might do it again
NR - did you ask her
AH - no
NR - did you tell her about an appeal hearing
AH - not sure
NR - we have no evidence that C was invited to appeal hearing

NR - those are the two that C typed out, now on to tweet she liked
[discussion of how Twitter worked re likes etc]
NR - tweet describes trans ideology as most evil, homophobic, misogynistic thing in my lifetime, what's wrong with this tweet
AH - extreme, use of the word evil

NR - so it's the word evil
AH - well yes
NR - would it be acceptable to say misogyny is evil
AH - [unclear responses]
NR - gay rights campaigners would say homophobia is evil
AH - more moderate ways to say it
NR - so if C says that trans ideology is homophobic

and homophobia is evil than it must be acceptable to say that trans ideology is homophobic
AH - no reply audile
NR - tweet about trans ideology grooming children
AH - yes
NR - do you understand this to say that all trans people are pedophiles
AH - yes

NR - ref'ing to dismissal letter, Miss Osborne reframes inference now saying that trans people are a danger, not pedophiles, do you accept that the original interpretation was wrong, no reasonable interpretation that TW are pedophiles
AH - better to say danger

NR - now to transcript which is imperfect, [reading out very rapidly], drag queen story hour, children in the background, men with just a piece of plastic around their genitals
AH - yes
NR - do you accept that GC people reasonably object to this

AH - well, use of the word grooming
NR - there was nothing else that C wrote or said that called TW pedophiles
AH - no
NR - tweets were consistently held to mean something C did not mean, is that because she is GC and therefore transphobic

AH - no, reasonable interpretation
NR - do you agree that it was reasonable for R to put interpretation of tweets to C and that the R did not do so. Do you accept that R did not do so?
AH - Not in that form.
NR - Judge did you want a break,
J - how long will you be

NR - with a break until lunch time
J - asks AH
AH - 5 minutes would be good
J - we will take a break.
Court rises. End of first morning session.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.