O'Donnell v Times unfair dismissal case

God knows why I looked at this fundraiser again... turns out only £1520 was raised out of a target of £25k. It has now been closed as the window for an appeal has ended. So that's that. Be interesting to see what happens with the Guardian employment cases.

Yes. Considering the three current GC legal fundraisers are at 10k and 9k and 4K (Louise M, Kate S, and Helena W)

No doubt it will be dismissed as a sign of the Christian fundamentalist activity, rather than the reality, which is hundreds of ordinary women (and a few men) chucking in a tenner.

£675 raised of £25k target. This is up there with the non-demand for RMcK's talk.

No doubt O'Donnell's crack legal team informed the complainant about the risks of damaging information coming out into the public domain.

Robin? Care to comment?

People should be careful about what information gets put into the public domain.

Sometimes it is information that does not reflect well on you.

O' Donnell's boss:

"We then discussed the fact that there had been 4 major errors on your watch since I joined The Times in mid January ; the rogue splash published to 7,000 Scottish readers; the wrong Alexander appearing in a stand first; the SNP being described as anti austerity in a headline; and a double Andy Murray story. I said I recognised that the workload and culture of the Scottish operation had changed, but stressed I could not accept it was “impossible to do your job without errors”.

No doubt O'Donnell's crack legal team informed the complainant about the risks of damaging information coming out into the public domain.

People should be careful about what information gets put into the public domain.

Sometimes it is information that does not reflect well on you.

O' Donnell's boss:

"We then discussed the fact that there had been 4 major errors on your watch since I joined The Times in mid January ; the rogue splash published to 7,000 Scottish readers; the wrong Alexander appearing in a stand first; the SNP being described as anti austerity in a headline; and a double Andy Murray story. I said I recognised that the workload and culture of the Scottish operation had changed, but stressed I could not accept it was “impossible to do your job without errors”.

No doubt O'Donnell's crack legal team informed the complainant about the risks of damaging information coming out into the public domain.

I see Natacha Kennedy has thrown in a tenner. Generous support of an important case.

Good. Congratulations to the times. Freedom of speech and common sense wins. It's a beautiful thing. 🎉🎊🍾🥂

Taking your boos to an employment tribunal tends to go down like a lead balloon with future employers.

Their crowd funder isn't doing very well.

I don’t understand why Katherine isn’t employable though? Surely Katherine is an experienced journalist?

Finally, a GenuineFemaleExperience for our cheeky young scamp!

O’Donnell should try to look on the bright side as they are now completely unemployable whilst being the wrong side of 50 - surely they must find this very validating as lots of women can testify? Not sexy enough I suppose 🤷‍♀️

‘the tribunal did not understand our argument and came to the wrong conclusion.’

'cos they is all stupid.

Yes, Katherine’s complaint seems to be that Katherine was not allowed to control the editorial narrative of the Times regarding trans issues

Because reading the judgment, Katherine would have to be seriously divorced from reality if Katherine doesn’t understand that Katherine was extremely well supported by Katherine’s employers during Katherine’s elective plastic surgery and changes in clothing choices

That's about the size of it. Insofar as accommodating the transition of an employee, the Times appears to have bent over backwards.

The judgement is not flattering to the claimant.

So basically this person's lawsuit is about being angry that they weren't able to #cancelJaniceTurner?

Quote from Kathy, ‘the tribunal did not understand our argument and came to the wrong conclusion.’

Err no Kathy, your argument is not valid. The Times were rightly reporting factual truths.

God, that me me me me me narrative.

Keep it short. Keep it snappy. Make a point. Any point.

And the shoehorning in of Muslims and 'white supremacy'.

Dear God. Utterly shameless.

www.gofundme.com/f/transphobia-at-the-times?rcid=r01-156865854919-b68e60fe72174000&pc=tw_co_campmgmt_m

Money is being raised for an appeal, not through CrowdJustice interestingly. The grounds for appeal are not discussed.

Seems to have gone wrong for the claimant when a woman got the Scotland job they thought they should get...seems that whatever else got removed during surgery - the sense of entitlement was left intact.

I thought that too. And that the woman in question must have been truly exceptional... yet did not get the job on a permanent basis despite having done a brilliant job, according to the evidence provided.

Then for O’Donnell to not apply for the permanent role, point this out to the boss, then double down when the boss asked for clarification as to whether O’Donnell wanted to apply.

I’d personally have taken that query as confirmation that the boss didn’t consider an application to be beyond hope, even if the likelihood of getting it was small. Applying, despite the poor chance of success, would be an indicator of ambition and a keeness to rise within the company. You can’t only apply for jobs you’re sure you will get if you want to get on.

Nothing like sour grapes to confirm that your decision not to promote an individual was 100% correct!

Thanks for the link, Mrs Snippy Pants. It makes an interesting read. Given the findings of fact by the tribunal, I wonder what any grounds for appeal might be?

Good ruling but OMG! "The Tribunal considered it unfortunate and ill advised that Simon Pearson ‘deadnamed’ the claimant in his witness statement, which was prepared by the respondents’ solicitors. "

Presumably this was in his witness statement about the transition i.e

""Bob" (or whatever their name was before) had been working here for two years when she told us that he would be transitioning to female and would like to be known as Katherine from from the end of the month and be referred to as she and her. "

That makes sense as a witness statement of what happened.... instead they are supposed to say:

""Katherine had been working here for two years when she told us that she would be transitioning to female and would like to be known as Katherine from now on and be referred to as she and her"

.... history has to be rewritten says the tribunal??

the sense of entitlement was left intact
Wasn’t it just? I keep going back and rereading bits where The Times seemingly tied themselves in knots to accommodate this employee’s every expressed wish and need and then some and it still wasn’t enough. All the while the employee was looking for any excuse to wangle cause for a ‘transphobia’ complaint. Some people do t know when they’re well off.