I find the nitpicking, quibbling and "what I would have done/what she could have done/what most people would have done" comments on this woman's decision to resign extremely lacking in empathy. Perhaps due to a lack of insight into how traumatic and extraordinarily long-winded Disciplinary Procedures can be?
The first stage of a Disciplinary Procedure is not the one to consider, it is the last stage, an Employment Tribunal (same in Scotland?) because it might need to go to that. If so, reckon on a year to 18 months of further stress in the workplace, affecting health, relationships plus interest from the press.
Not forgetting this is not any issue, it is a Trans issue. We know how TRAs target organisations and individuals.
This is all assuming that the Charity has decent HR Procedures. Many do not and are incompetent and/or aggressive when it comes to industrial relations.
The woman does not mention a trade union so perhaps the Charity does not recognise a Trade Union or she is not a member?
Unfortunately, even if there is a Union and she is a member they might not have the appetite to take this case on because many unions, (and the Scottish TUC now?) have fallen under the "No debate" Trans spell. (See "Regulatory Capture" thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture )
The first stage can be stretched out by HR so that a process that should take a matter of days or weeks takes months.
Again, this is not any issue, it is a Trans Issue. However weak the case against her in theory, it is not hard to imagine the direct and indirect pressure that might be placed on the Charity. I dread to think of the personal impact.
Hard to see the case not falling at that hurdle. Then one or more stages of Appeal. The last one probably to Board/Non-exec members. Finally, having exhausted all internal procedures, perhaps (only perhaps) there might be grounds to take to an Employment Tribunal.
This is all speculative but you have to look at the worst-case scenario when making a decision whether or not to fight something like this. Also the support (and protection?) available, what else is going on in your life and whether you want to stay with that employer, re-employment prospects, etc.
A reminder of what she actually said on this subject in the article (bold text my emphasis):
"Anyone who enters into the debate about transgender recognition can expect to become a target of activists and social media trolls. So I do not enter into this minefield lightly. Three recent events have prompted me to write this. The first of these was losing my livelihood. The second was the first minister's response to a journalist, when she was addressing the UN on human rights last month, in which she dismissed medical and scientific evidence. The third was the letter by a 'collective' of 70 women, describing the views of those who did not agree with them as 'archaic', without presenting one shred of evidence that substantiates this assertion.
I'll start with the first event. Following an overheard conversation in my workplace, I was accused of 'contravening equalities legislation'. This was because I voiced concerns to a colleague about, firstly, the adequacy of assessment of risk that had been carried out in relation to the proposal that 'self-identification' should become the only criterion for biological males to be legally considered females and, secondly, the wisdom of the guidance provided to schools by Education Scotland. Its website suggests that 'affirmation' rather than 'watchful waiting' should be the response to children whose preferences do not equate with the roles traditionally associated with their biological sex, when research and longitudinal data indicates otherwise.
The workplace in question was a charitable organisation where I had worked for 10 years. I previously had worked in public services with decades of experience in children's social care and education. Questions of equalities and rights were matters of which I had long and well-respected experience in Scotland, the UK and Europe. My personal commitment to human rights and to eradicating inequality has also been unwavering throughout my life. It was, therefore, a real body blow to be so unjustly accused and my health and wellbeing were seriously affected.
In essence, I was given an ultimatum. Either I left my post voluntarily, or action would be taken against me that, I was left in no doubt, would be seeking to dismiss me. The legal advice I had suggested that the case against me was flimsy at best – indeed I was advised that, had there been an adequate case to dismiss me, there would have been no need to offer any alternative. It was also pointed out to me that the disciplinary and appeal process would be protracted and stressful, and that 'victory' would mean I had to return to a workplace where I felt threatened and isolated and where, I am sure, there would have been continued attempts to get rid of me. This would probably have resulted in irretrievable compromise to my health and welfare. Clearly, therefore, I was in a 'lose/lose' situation.
Let me be clear – I have no wish to stick my head above the parapet and have done so very reluctantly. I have, however, felt it necessary to do so as I know of many other women who fear the consequences of questioning policy and legislative positions that fly in the face of known evidence. I also am aware of others who have been put through kangaroo courts or subjected to abusive name-calling for legitimate questioning of what seems to have become orthodoxy without any significant supporting information. "
(Continued:
www.scottishreview.net/MMorrison476a.html )
I think she deserves a bloody medal for what she has done so far and for going public.
If you are reading this, Maggie 