O'Donnell v Times unfair dismissal case

It's interesting that O'Donnell didn't notice this unequal treatment while O'Donnell was still living as a man. O'Donnell clearly had very little idea about what 'living as a woman' actually meant.

Indeed. One might wonder how it is that O’Donnell was completely blind to sex-based workplace iniquities that only became ‘immediately obvious’ the instant they transitioned.

Or did they only become ‘immediately obvious’ once the relocation was effected and O’Donnell required a peg upon which to hang their perceptions of ‘discrimination’?

I wonder if David from The Telegraph is getting special Loss of Privilege training, alongside the speech therapy etc.

He went to Eton. He'll never suffer loss of privilege.

It's interesting that O'Donnell didn't notice this unequal treatment while O'Donnell was still living as a man. O'Donnell clearly had very little idea about what 'living as a woman' actually meant.

Yes really. How very ungrateful not to appreciate the authentic validation of their womanhood.

In her witness statement, she said: “Once I transitioned to a female role in the office, the quality of my work did not lessen but it was immediately obvious to me that a number of the senior men in the office applied unequal standards to male and female colleagues.

“Women who were highly competent in their role and confident of expressing their professional opinion were frequently under-valued and their authority undermined by some of the male executives.

“I saw men of mediocre talent promoted beyond their abilities and women of exceptional talent held back.”

It's interesting that O'Donnell didn't notice this unequal treatment while O'Donnell was still living as a man. O'Donnell clearly had very little idea about what 'living as a woman' actually meant.

I read this last night and it cheered me no end after fuming about women’s sport this week.

I was worried the times would settle rather than defend it due to costs, I’m very glad they stuck by their principles even though it probably cost them more than it would have to make the matter go away quietly.

And IME the system is not very good at eliminating claims with poor prospects.

Presumably Katherine O’Donnell was able to fund her own claim? I am fairly sure that unions will only support members going to an Employment Tribunal if they think the chances of winning are more than 50%.

As Pencils has written, such a contrast with the position of ordinary people who certainly couldn’t afford a barrister. I actually looked up Employment Tribunals on gov.uk and you have to go to ACAS first to see if the dispute can be resolved by Early Conciliation.

This thread has been quite a revelation - especially the bit about redeployment - which I don’t remember in the early news coverage. The irony is that Katherine O’Donnell felt less respected after transition. I wonder if David from The Telegraph is getting special Loss of Privilege training, alongside the speech therapy etc.

The tribunal result is of course a pleasing victory for justice.

Sorry for the derail about scamps but the person in AnyOldPrion 's picture might almost have used JellyfishAndShells description as a recipe. A very scampy look indeed.

How is it a sweeping generalizationMargueritaBlue? Of course prudent employers take out insurance against being sued by employees;

It's a sweeping generalisation because it isn't correct. It certainly isn't my experience that this is widespread and general - quite the opposite.

In her judgment, she concluded O’Donnell’s redundancy was not as a result of being a trans woman, a status protected by law.

Wrong. And they know it. Awful reporting.

During the hearing, O’Donnell said she overheard the then deputy editor and deputy head of news refer to murdered trans women in India as “a lifestyle choice” – a comment O’Donnell said made her vomit involuntarily.

According to stonewall being a part time cross dresser is trans. Being a transvestite is trans. Being a raging AGP is trans. It's not a medical condition or a mental health issue either. Acceptance without exception.

Vomit away, but take it up with stonewall.

From The Gusrduan article:

During the hearing, O’Donnell said she overheard the then deputy editor and deputy head of news refer to murdered trans women in India as “a lifestyle choice” – a comment O’Donnell said made her vomit involuntarily.

However, she did not report it until four and a half years after it was claimed to have happened, and the judge ruled this apparent incident “did not take place as alleged” by the claimant.

O’Donnell was undergoing gender reassignment when she joined the Times as a staff sub-editor in January 2004 and presented as a man until her probation period had ended.

In her witness statement, she said: “Once I transitioned to a female role in the office, the quality of my work did not lessen but it was immediately obvious to me that a number of the senior men in the office applied unequal standards to male and female colleagues.

Starts to dress as a woman as soon as their probation period is up. And claims the reaction is sexism?

The real question is how did they ever think a tribunal would buy it?

No doubt the Guardian is relieved:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/23/transgender-journalist-discrimination-claim-times-newspaper

Additional details here:

www.pressgazette.co.uk/transgender-ex-times-journalist-loses-discrimination-claim-against-paper/

Here’s another scamp looking professional at work! It’s uncanny how they seem to have so much in common...

Great result.

The last thing we need is a press afraid to print stories in case they offend a staff member (and the unintended consequence would be not hiring women and minorities. We’d be back the 1950s workplace before we know it).

I’ve never worked in a company that had insurance against employment claims.

Defending a claim can bankrupt a small business.

And IME the system is not very good at eliminating claims with poor prospects.

I think the system needs a complete overhaul.

How is it a sweeping generalization MargueritaBlue? Of course prudent employers take out insurance against being sued by employees; even if the complainant doesn’t win a case, the cost of defending it can be eye-wateringly expensive. It’s swings and roundabouts though - where a company gains on not paying the lawyers in a settlement, they lose on the much higher insurance premiums in perpetuity after insurers have settled a case. I’d say it would be foolish not to have that kind of insurance in these litigious times.

For every O'Donnell there are a fuckton of ordinary, low waged employees who have been unfairly dismissed because they are pregnant / wrong race / have a disability / pursued a sexual harassment complaint / they're a whistleblower, or they've been bullied and harassed because of a personal vendetta, or have faced unfair redundancy or have been denied sick pay, holiday pay, maternity pay, just their normal pay ... or they've been denied adequate breaks, protective equipment, adequate training to do their job safely, or their employer has them in some sort of bogus self employed contract or just hasn't paid their NI ... or many other disgraceful things.

And if ordinary low waged employees cannot afford to bring any of these bread and butter cases to tribunal because they risk having to pay their employer's legal costs if they lose then we can all wave goodbye to our most basic employment rights because they are unenforceable.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The ET appear to be quite good at 'sifting' cases from what I have seen - I don't think many truly vexatious cases get through. It would be interesting to look at the thresholds and compare them with BCHRT.

Employers take out insurance for this sort of thing

That is a sweeping generalisation

Slight derail but why would a grown up person, who aspires to a professional profile, describe themselves as a "scamp"?

Think it goes with a mischievous twinkle in the eye and a merry toss of shiny locks. Or some kind of tossing, anyway.

I was struck by an unnerving resemblance to the late, lamented Dear Lady - Dame Hilda Bracket. Similar in many significant features.

Pencils the problem with disproportionate costs risk has been amply illustrated by the Canadian human rights tribunal system.

Often it is cheaper and easier to settle and give a modest payout, but that gives people of a vexatious/grifting nature confidence to keep at it and up their game.

And paying out the odd £2-5K is no mean expense for a small employer.

Also, as someone who once worked in insurance, it bugs the hell out of me as a matter of principle just settling because it's cheaper. Those costs have to be offset - guess where? When the premiums go up.

It's fair enough that employees don't risk having to pay costs if they take their employer to tribunal. Otherwise very few employees could afford to do so and all our employment rights would be worth shit.

Employers take out insurance for this sort of thing.

“The tribunal does not accept the evidence of a ‘boys club’ during the claimant’s employment . . . there was a significant number of senior women in powerful positions.”

That's the problem with transing. You're not in the boys club any more. But you're not in the girls club either.