Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Judith Joyce — Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:53:48 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247456#247456"]The fact that he wasn’t called by the practice seems odd, at the very least.[/quote]

He might not have wanted to - not everyone enjoys the experience of giving evidence in court I am told

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Sun, 13 Jul 2025 07:51:50 GMT

This certainly illustrates how your greatest vulnerability is your least legally aware or insufficiently trained member of the practice. Personally I think it’s extremely difficult and really quite unreasonable to expect everyone in the practice to have the interpersonal skills and awareness of nuance of discrimination to be held to the same level of accountability. There will always be those who are socially inept , sometimes due to neurodiversity but also plain lack of education. These individuals need jobs and receive training but they may still get things wrong . In the past receptionists were not expected to have the social skills of Barack Obama. I hope the damages awarded to this client are around the 50p mark

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Fri, 11 Jul 2025 06:01:40 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247451#247451"]she claims it is discriminatory because of how well know the case is and the onus is on the practice to prove it is not discriminatory, then what? Because my interpretation of the outcome is that the practice can be easily taken to court. [/quote]

If a new practice simply told her they weren’t taking her on and didn’t give reasons, other than they don’t think she’s a good fit. If they can demonstrate they’ve turned down other clients in the same way previously, then AB would be hard pushed to demonstrate a prima facie case that the practice had dealt with her differently from other clients, which it appears, is what she was considered to have demonstrated here. The onus was only on the practice because the case made was considered evidence enough to flip the burden of proof.

I had another look through part of the judgment last night to see if there was anything I’d missed before that might come closer to a “smoking gun”. The only thing I came across that I hadn’t remembered was in para 84 where AB says she discussed her case with Dr Hamilton. She says that he had told her others in the practice were watching the case and that he said he supported her, but that others in the practice had differing views. She says she asked if she needed to worry about the others and that he didn’t answer, which she took to mean yes.

Other than that, from him there is a statement from 2011 about AB being difficult to deal with, then nothing else until after the sacking letter had been sent and AB had complained. Various other staff members have also made claims that he warned them about how difficult AB was and one of them described him as a coward who stayed in his room when clients were difficult.

Both sides effectively claim he was on their side and he seems to have been the vet who mostly dealt with her. The fact that he wasn’t called by the practice seems odd, at the very least.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Dinu Catilina — Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:54:50 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247450#247450"]Advice from the VDS, when turning someone down was not to give a reason, just a letter stating something like "we feel we are not the practice for you" or "we feel we cannot best serve your needs" There is no obligation to accept anyone and a reasonn doesn't have to be given to refuse someone.[/quote]

ok but if she claims it is discriminatory because of how well know the case is and the onus is on the practice to prove it is not discriminatory, then what? Because my interpretation of the outcome is that the practice can be easily taken to court.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Clive Ansell — Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:46:04 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247448#247448"]Can she take them to court if a practice says they would not register her if their books are open? [/quote]

Yes, if it is discriminatory based on her beliefs, gender, sexuality, religion etc.

One of my regular practices closely vets potential new clients wanting to join the practice, they don't accept anyone, they are very particular who they accept and who they don't, and there is a waiting list.

Advice from the VDS, when turning someone down was not to give a reason, just a letter stating something like "we feel we are not the practice for you" or "we feel we cannot best serve your needs" There is no obligation to accept anyone and a reasonn doesn't have to be given to refuse someone.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Judith Joyce — Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:44:47 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247444#247444"]It’s obviously an obscure legal point[/quote]

Not really obscure, just specific to discrimination. Courts recognise that the complainant may not have access to all the facts for evidence so they have to meet the lower standard of proof of balance of probabilities to bring the case then the employer has the burden of proving they haven't discriminated If I remember rightly also discrimination cases differ in that there is no ceiling to the damages awarded in discrimination cases.

Best avoided.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Dinu Catilina — Thu, 10 Jul 2025 11:49:28 GMT

Well, if she registers online and books an appointment and she is refused can she take the new practice to court? Can she take them to court if a practice says they would not register her if their books are open?

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Anthony Dennison — Thu, 10 Jul 2025 11:14:43 GMT

One thing is fairly certain - now this judgement is out and people are aware of it, good luck to her finding another vet practice if she ever wants to move again.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:37:51 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247443#247443"]I haven't read anything that seems to amount to direct proof or evidence that she was discriminated against because of her beliefs.[/quote]

I agree. I was surprised to read that it became the practice’s responsibility to prove it hadn’t discriminated, rather than Alison’s responsibility to prove it had.

It’s obviously an obscure legal point that is worth bearing in mind if you run a practice. Make sure, if you have protocols in place, that you follow them, especially in dealings with potentially litigious lawyers.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:03:58 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247436#247436"]I too can believe the failure to follow protocol simply comes down to incompetence. However, for the purposes of this case, it came down to the burden of proof, I understand. For some technical reason, it flipped, so the practice had to prove that their opinion of Allison Bailey’s politics made no difference to how she was treated. Quite difficult to prove, I imagine.[/quote]

I've read the judgement, and have to say I am still bemused by the whole thing. I haven't read anything that seems to amount to direct proof or evidence that she was discriminated against because of her beliefs.

The judgement mentions detriment as one of the factors, but she was leaving anyway and had already asked for clinical notes to be sent elsewhere, so not detrimental at all.

It would be easy to sack her as client anyway, one does not even need to give a reason.

129 of the judgement.
There is also something about the way in which the issue came to a head so quickly. 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.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 06:20:51 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247438#247438"] Now what[/quote]

Now back, in one week’s time, to the Sandie Peggie case, where a male medical doctor has already stated, under oath, that he’s a biological woman.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Dinu Catilina — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 17:52:07 GMT

What a waste of everyone's time and money. Now what? Happy reunion?

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:17:18 GMT

[quote userid="11308" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247432#247432"]

You're probably right, but having a quiet word spoken in my ear when I was younger about being big mouthed about my opinions I try to ensure the layby between my brain and mouth is used appropriately nowadays! Just wouldn't put it past someone like her to do a deep dive to look for opinions and start going through them too.

Having seen Reddit, she'll be busy with that for a while so we're safe.

[/quote]

I think you are probably very safe. There’s probably more risk to anyone who comments against the practice.

Arlo, it is indeed an odd case, and I too can believe the failure to follow protocol simply comes down to incompetence. However, for the purposes of this case, it came down to the burden of proof, I understand. For some technical reason, it flipped, so the practice had to prove that their opinion of Allison Bailey’s politics made no difference to how she was treated. Quite difficult to prove, I imagine.

The judge quite possibly was not aware of how casual such processes might be within a smallish vet practice, with staff promoted with no management training. Some vets and some nurses are deeply unsuited to management positions, but that doesn’t always stop them being promoted.

But there’s also another backdrop the judge might be aware of. The reality is that there’s an astonishing level of vitriol against women like JK Rowling (who was considered to be a friend of Allison Bailey, within the practice, I think). The hatred for women who openly share their belief that sex is real and is important when it comes down to whether you use men’s or women’s spaces goes well beyond any logical frustration caused by a political difference, which is what I consider it to be. I don’t understand it, but it definitely exists. That someone in the throes of that brand of vitriol, might send a letter out of spite, when they already knew she was leaving (good riddance to bad rubbish, don’t let the door hit you on the way out, you bigot) certainly isn’t beyond the realms of possibility. You strike me as being quite logical. Not everybody is and this topic really does seem to drive people to behave in ways they never normally would.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Anthony Dennison — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:54:13 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247429#247429"]S'ok, IVC are sending out an Albanian with some sandpaper, as we speak. [/quote]

They'd have to go through the tedious IEMS portal first and get 3 different quotes, I'll have sorted myself out by then.

[quote userid="4037" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247430#247430"]This is a fairly quiet discussion, Anthony. Nobody has said anything particularly controversial. On Reddit, there are people saying she’s a paedophile and abuses her dog.[/quote]

Having seen Reddit, she'll be busy with that for a while so we're safe.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:51:48 GMT

That was my view too.

[quote userid="4037" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247430#247430"]She also can’t Google and find anything on here, I don’t think, because Arlo only allows vets to post and checks first. Unless you are a vet and logged in, this discussion is private. Am I correct, Arlo?[/quote]

Sarah McGurk Nearly. You can never be entirely sure that something posted even in a membership site wont wind up somewhere else - this is true of anywhere online. We do allow non-vets, like industry members, practice managers, charities etc. But we don't allow google to index the forums, so it can't see the posts.

I think if you post only reasonable discussion points, framed politely, the chances of ever coming unstuck are very small. I think in 20 years I have only seen one piece of content reproduced from here (which I swiftly had removed). There was once a complaint to the RCVS about a member, but that was by another member (both vets).

[quote userid="4037" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247422#247422"]I think there is little doubt that, had she been a delight to work with, she probably wouldn’t have been sacked, but that wasn’t what the judge was assessing. He explicitly states that he recognizes she was a difficult client. His assessment was about whether the fact that (some of) them despised her politics made a difference to how she was treated and he felt, on the balance of probabilities, that it probably did.[/quote]

That just feels like a bit of an illogical thought process to me. I mean, if she was polite, reasonable etc, none of this would ever have happened. And wouldn't it be fair to say that it is human nature to notice traits/characteristics/beliefs we dislike in people we dislike. It's confirmation bias of the fact that they are ghastly.

I think it would be more or less impossible to say with any certainty whether someone's treatment of someone they already disliked was coloured by their subsequent discovery that they also hold opinions they disagree with.

For sure, you can argue that the practice didn't follow the firing procedure - I don't see that as proof of anything other than a mistake. Lying in court? I think i is understandable how someone might say they were unaware of someone's beliefs because they fear that if they admit knowledge, the judge will conclude they are guilty, whether or not they are. If that makes sense.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 06:11:05 GMT

This is a fairly quiet discussion, Anthony. Nobody has said anything particularly controversial. On Reddit, there are people saying she’s a paedophile and abuses her dog.

She also can’t Google and find anything on here, I don’t think, because Arlo only allows vets to post and checks first. Unless you are a vet and logged in, this discussion is private. Am I correct, Arlo?

The vets in the practice might be here looking though, so that is worth considering, but I think, for practices, it’s important to consider why this has happened. The whole situation is incredibly febrile at the moment.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 07 Jul 2025 21:03:29 GMT

[quote userid="11308" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247426#247426"]Just off to pick splinters out of my bum from sitting on the fence. [/quote]

S'ok, IVC are sending out an Albanian with some sandpaper, as we speak.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Anthony Dennison — Mon, 07 Jul 2025 12:58:48 GMT

I would think that, after reading the court transcript and the claimant's tendency to Google staff members and probably also search for interactions involving her, that discussing this may be risky in case she traces it back and demands transcripts of this forum, no?

Not that anything that has been said is wrong or right, but given the history/previous exploits and court cases, it may be prudent to tread with caution.

Just off to pick splinters out of my bum from sitting on the fence.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 20:51:02 GMT

I think there is little doubt that, had she been a delight to work with, she probably wouldn’t have been sacked, but that wasn’t what the judge was assessing. He explicitly states that he recognizes she was a difficult client. His assessment was about whether the fact that (some of) them despised her politics made a difference to how she was treated and he felt, on the balance of probabilities, that it probably did.

At the very least, I would say the practice handled the situation in an unprofessional and disjointed way and, it would appear, differently than it dealt with the other two clients they sacked.

Were they especially unprofessional because of her views? I haven’t heard of a practice sacking anyone for views they don’t like, but if you look at many of the recent cases brought to employment tribunals, Sandie Peggie, for example, when certain managers decide that others are “transphobic” it appears to create a massive blind spot, where all logic goes out of the window. Those managers seem to forget all about following policies and possible consequences for not doing so. It’s a bizarre phenomenon, but happening over and over.

Sending a letter to a client who’s already leaving is, at best, illogical. Doing so, while failing to follow your own procedures, then lying in court about whether you viewed her opinions negatively when you know she’s a barrister is the height of foolishness.

154. The inference from primary facts is in my view established. I accept that there is
evidence that Ms Bailey could be difficult and aggressive with staff. However,
the absence of current warnings, the non-application of the zero tolerance policy,
the way in which the decision was taken, the denial of knowledge of Ms Bailey’s
gender critical beliefs when on balance they were aware of them, Ms Cook’s
evidence about the signing of termination letters being something the clinical
director did when that is not what happened on the two previous occasions, when
added to the evidence of the extensive discussion of Ms Bailey’s gender critical
beliefs within the practice and denial of that by the Defendant’s witnesses is more
than sufficient to pass the first stage'

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Arlo Guthrie — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 18:34:58 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247419#247419"]I have read the whole thing.[/quote]

Me too.

[quote userid="3584" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247417#247417"]She was sacked for being a vile client if you read the whole thing, I am angry and sad that she is blaming reaction to her beliefs instead of realising she is a horrible human being.[/quote]

Noweia I once worked for an barrister and they were almost as barristerial in their approach to dealing with people in the office as I imagine they would have been in a courtroom. Adversarial, didn't suffer fools gladly and seized upon and exaggerated any perceived error in the same way as if they were fighting a case. Some people found that very, er, challenging. I wonder if that is a hazard of working in that profession.

Aside from the testimony that she was a difficult client, I thought the nature of her complaints was quite telling. I mean, complaining about a missing appointment that she was ringing to cancel anyway? What? Who does that? And about a change of flea treatment? That seems an easily solvable issue. Consult notes sent to kennels. Again, I just don't get it. I mean sure, if there had been some ill consequence. But apparently there was not. A bit like complaining about an appointment you don't plan to attend!

I saw a much more compelling argument that she was dismissed because the relationship between her and the practice had broken down, than for her views on gender, and if I had been the judge (!) I would have been asking myself ... Would she have been dismissed as a client if she had been at all times polite, and any complaint had been reasonable, measured and discussed politely? I just find it very hard to believe that she would.

I mean who ever heard of a practice firing a client because they had irrelevant opinions they don't agree with or maybe even don't like? Has anyone even heard of that happening before?

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 13:39:17 GMT

Apologies I keep forgetting to quote and I can’t edit on my iPad, but my previous reply was to Noweia

I agree, Clive. The impression I got from reading the judgment was that there was quite a lot of poor communication going on within the practice, as well as between practice and client.

The fact that Allison Bailey’s preferred vet made no statement and wasn’t a witness is also interesting, though I accept there may be perfectly valid reasons for his absence.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 13:34:19 GMT

I have read the whole thing.

She forgot her prescription, saw it through the open door of the pharmacy and, having been unable to attract anyone’s attention, she took it. She then called them to tell them she’d done it. Hardly the crime of the century.

Do you think her beliefs make her a horrible human being? One of the clinic staff came within a hair’s breadth of doing so in court, according to the judge. It was one of the things that he particularly commented on.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Clive Ansell — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 11:21:38 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31204/allison-bailey-wins-her-case-against-linnaeus-veterinary-ltd/247415#247415"]In addition, after Allison Bailey had supposedly been rude to two receptionists about an appointment she thought she’d booked (they had no record of it) the practice manager wrote her a letter, apologizing for the misunderstanding over the booking. Either the practice manager didn’t believe AB had been rude, or she was incompetent in failing to defend the staff and in pointing out the practice’s zero tolerance policy for abuse.[/quote]

Again, a non issue, and a whole load of song and dance about nothing. Client phoned to cancel an appointment that didn't exist anyway; maybe she didn't book it? maybe whoever took the booking didn't update the diary? maybe acidentally deleted? maybe maliciously deleted? maybe had phoned previously and cancelled and then forgot. Why the need to complain or for the practice to apologise?

Being a corporate company they probably have an IT department, that could look through any computer trail and see if an appointment was made and then deleted or not, when, and under whos login? not that it makes any difference.

At least she had the decency to telephone and cancel, many don't.

Again, one is left wondering whether some form of reception staff (re)training is needed in how to avoid confrontation, and diffuse and deal with these type of situations?

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Noweia — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 08:07:12 GMT

Apparently when waiting for a prescription she went into the pharmacy and took it herself?! She was sacked for being a vile client if you read the whole thing, I am angry and sad that she is blaming reaction to her beliefs instead of realising she is a horrible human being.

RE: Allison Bailey wins her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd

Sarah McGurk — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 06:38:25 GMT

It is what happened though. It surprised me too when I read the judgment. You are correct it makes no sense. I should imagine the judge took that fact into account.

The practice had historically sacked two other clients. We aren’t told what they had done, but it’s implied both had gone well beyond being blunt and difficult to deal with.

In addition, after Allison Bailey had supposedly been rude to two receptionists about an appointment she thought she’d booked (they had no record of it) the practice manager wrote her a letter, apologizing for the misunderstanding over the booking. Either the practice manager didn’t believe AB had been rude, or she was incompetent in failing to defend the staff and in pointing out the practice’s zero tolerance policy for abuse.

I suspect the latter. Too many leaders fail to protect their staff and side with difficult clients, but I imagine the judge saw a missed opportunity to inform the client her behaviour was inappropriate. To go straight to sacking with no warning as to conduct (other than on one occasion, thirteen years earlier) despite an obvious opportunity to do so does not seem rational. Again, I suspect the judge took this into account.

I don’t fully understand the legal complexities, but it seems it was up to the practice to prove that the letter was sent purely because the client’s behaviour was beyond the pale and not because they disliked her political views.

Interesting to see how much sending an unnecessary letter to a client who was already leaving costs them.