Court finds practice acted unlawfully after excluding gender-critical client

A veterinary business has been found to have acted unlawfully when it withdrew its services from a prominent campaigner and former barrister.

Lawyers for Linnaeus had denied allegations that its Palmerston Veterinary Group discriminated against Allison Bailey because of her gender-critical beliefs.

But a judge concluded there was strong evidence that her stance had been known within the practice, and it had failed to prove the issue played no part in its decision.

First of its kind

The case is thought to be the first of its kind where a service provider has been successfully sued for discrimination linked to the gender-critical view that a person’s sex is biological and cannot be changed.

In response to the ruling, a Linnaeus spokesperson said: “Our focus is on providing the best possible care for pets in a welcoming environment and supporting our teams.”

But Ms Bailey’s solicitor, Peter Daly, described the outcome as very important for all businesses.

He said: “It is essential that businesses and service providers take good note of this judgement and review their own practices and attitudes in order to avoid finding themselves as the next unsuccessful defendant.”

Decision

The case followed a decision by the practice, which operates four sites in Essex and Greater London, to terminate its professional relationship with Ms Bailey in January 2023.

The group, which Linnaeus had acquired three months earlier, claimed Ms Bailey had acted inappropriately towards its staff, one of whom told the Central London County Court that she had been warned Ms Bailey could be “intimidating”.

She also described how she had been left in tears by the exchange, which preceded the sending of a letter advising Ms Bailey to find another veterinary practice.

Although she denied the accusations about her conduct, judge Andrew Holmes said he accepted there was evidence that Ms Bailey “did not behave well” towards practice staff and could be seen as “direct to the point of rudeness”.

Abusive behaviour

However, Judge Holmes criticised the practice for not following its own zero tolerance policy on abusive behaviour, despite relying upon it to justify its action, by failing to issue a warning to Ms Bailey before reaching a termination decision.

He said it was “inconceivable” that practice staff would not have spoken about Ms Bailey’s friendship with author JK Rowling, who is known as a prominent gender critic herself, and described the evidence supporting the claim her views had not influenced the move to bar her as “unsatisfactory”.

The judge added: “Far from being satisfied by the defendant that this played no part in the decision, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a culture within the practice which was contrary to Ms Bailey’s gender-critical views.”

A further hearing will take place at a later date to determine the amount to be paid in damages to Ms Bailey.