A lawyer who was dismissed for tweeting about a “stroppy youngster of colour” and was labelled “anti-woke” has lost a $3 million discrimination lawsuit against the chambers where he was fired.
When Jon Holbrook was kicked out of his rooms in January 2021, he argued in an employment tribunal that he had been treated unjustly because of his social conservatism.
After tweeting about Ruby Williams, a student at a Church of England school in East London who claimed she was the victim of racial discrimination because of her Afro hairstyle, Mr. Holbrook was fired in January 2021.
Mr. Holbrook, a UKIP member, tweeted about the situation and said, “The Equality Act undermines school discipline by enabling the stroppy youngster of colour.”
After the 30-year-old barrister’s tweet, attorneys at Cornerstone Chambers in Gray’s Inn Square, London, repeatedly ordered him to take down the remarks before kicking him out when he refused.
The Bar Standards Board found that Mr. Holbrook was expressing his “personal political view on a piece of legislation” seven months after the Bar Standards Board had cleared him of wrongdoing.
However, Mr. Holbrook’s attempt to sue the chambers, whose members include four QCs, for treating him unfairly because of his beliefs was dismissed today because he waited too long to bring it.
“(Mr. Holbrook) is a social conservative in the vein of the late Professor Sir Roger Scruton and in particular he is a critic of identity politics,” the tribunal had been informed at a preliminary hearing in central London.
As a result, “he believes in the significance of country, community, and family as well as on discovering concepts that members of society can share, but emphasising one’s race, sex, sexuality, or gender gives focus to features that are exclusive, rather than inclusive.”
In contrast to the contemporary left, who, especially when it comes to issues of race and culture, like to highlight what makes individuals different, Mr. Holbrook claims that his tweet was a “statement of the conservative idea that it is necessary to emphasise what people can share.”
He claimed that the members of the chambers had victimised, harassed, and discriminated against him as a result of his tweet, and he demanded to be given the opportunity to return to full-time work as a barrister and £3 million in compensation.
Because he advocated “conservative values such as ones that opposed identity politics, multiculturalism, and ‘woke’ notions,” he stated he was viewed “less favourably.”
Cornerstone, however, refuted his assertion, insisting that their choice to remove him had nothing to do with his overarching philosophical views.
The chambers stated: “The catalyst for action was not (Mr. Holbrook’s) “socially conservative” views, which he had been expressing in publications and social media for many years, but rather a single tweet, apparently insulting a mixed-race girl by referencing her colour and insinuating that she was I stroppy, and (ii) should not be – as a person of colour – empowered.
The tweet (and in particular the fact that it was insulting and seen as discriminatory) is why the chambers behaved as they did, not because of the member’s “social conservatism,” according to the statement.
Such discrimination cases must be filed within three months, according to tribunal regulations. However, the panel heard that Mr. Holbrook held off filing his claim for five months.
The lawyer requested an extension of the deadline, claiming that the delay was caused by his original conviction that his case would not be upheld under the rules governing equality.
This was denied by Judge Jillian Brown, who stated: “On the circumstances, his inability to file his claim within the three-month limitation period was his own deliberate choice.
He didn’t depend on other people’s opinions. He didn’t do any study on the deadlines for discrimination laws.
He was fully aware of the three-month deadline for filing cases with employment tribunals, especially those involving accusations of wrongful dismissal.
“He is an experienced barrister.” It would have been simple for him to do his own research and determine the deadlines for his discrimination claim.
Miss Williams had been expelled from Hackney, east London’s Urswick School many times over the course of more than three years, beginning in 2014 when she was only 14 years old.
Her father Lenny said that she was often scrutinised by employees over her hair.
Afro hair, including buns, was previously advised to be of “appropriate size and length” by the school. The standards now simply state that hairstyles should be “appropriate and should not affect on other pupils” in response to a complaint.
We do not agree that the school has discriminated, even inadvertently, against individuals or groups, the school’s governors stated after the matter was resolved.
They added that they were “hugely upset” if any child or family felt that we had treated them unfairly.
According to Mr. Holbrook, he quit prior to the expulsion judgement.
He said in a piece for The Critic that the salivating attack dogs’ need for some red meat was the only reason they continued to evict him in spite of his resignation.
This year, Mr. Holbrook overturned a £500 punishment he was given for a tweet he considered “offensive” to Muslims.
He had previously received a punishment from a disciplinary tribunal for tweeting to a Muslim journalist that “free speech is disappearing and Islamists and other Muslims are playing a vital role.”
But he was able to convince the jury that the tweet was not significant enough to merit punishment.
He continued by attacking “wokesters” and his regulator, the Bar Standards Board [BSB], for looking into him and calling them “playground bullies.”
According to the Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service (BTAS) appeal hearing, Mr. Holbrook was the subject of disciplinary proceedings for 18 tweets, 17 of which he was acquitted of responsibility for, including the Miss Williams-related one.