Maya lost - can it be true?

Hmmm, possibly might get it as a potentially fair reason under SOSR but not sure I think any tribunal in the land would find it reasonable to dismiss someone who had not committed any misconduct because of the chance they might do so in future.

It would not be capable of misconduct. It could potentially be unfair dismissal of A. But so long as the employer has an honestly held belief that one employee (A) is likely in the future to harass another employee (B) or that A will otherwise cause the employer to be in breach of contract with B (by allowing B to be placed in the same working environment as (A)) then the employer will have strong arguments that the dismissal was fair for ‘some other substantial reason’. This would be possible under the guise of a personality clash. Also a pressure group may complain to the employer and also create another substantial reason being pressure from a third party- also a known fair reason for dismissal of an employee.

Not for the past few decades but it's coming back into fashion. As ever you can count on gender identity ideology to reintroduce regressive stuff that we thought was in the bin of history.

they had a justifiable concern that there was a risk of harassment by Maya in the future against trans people having a GRC since Maya had expressed "hardline" views.

Do we normally allow companies to sack people for "pre-crimes"?

Just to add to the comments above, in my view there's a trick in the decision (well, it's teeming with them). Although it went against Maya because it was implied that she had harassed Murray and Bunce, in an appeal I would expect CGD to pull a fast one on this point and argue they were entitled to terminate the contract because they had a justifiable concern that there was a risk of harassment by Maya in the future against trans people having a GRC since Maya had expressed "hardline" views.

Hello Aston! Welcome to FWR.

That's a really useful link, thanks Aston. Please stick around.

I’ve come out as GC on Twitter.

I saw that post! Just to second/third/apply appropriate numerator the welcome.

Welcome Aston!

Howlsmovingcastle’s DH here-finally signed up for own account! I’ve been following the gender/sex debate for a while and offering legal advice where I can (through howl). I’m a qualified solicitor and barrister.
I’ve come out as GC on Twitter. I’ve been studying the judgement for the past few days and there are definitely grounds for appeal. I have posted why the judge was erred in law and fundamentally misunderstood the applicable test for free speech.
twitter.com/jac_aston/status/1209433175837040641?s=21

I just checked Maya's excavation ground and it's good to see it's thriving. One of the big diggers commented that her case is similar to Fekix Ngole and he won on appeal. So I looked up Felix Ngole and they're right.

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/03/christian-wins-appeal-after-being-thrown-off-social-work-course

I hope Maya tells us soon if she is applying for permission to appeal and how much more money she needs.

That looks like a good analysis. The original judgment is full of more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire. It just doesn't reflect the law as it stands.

Thanks pencils for trying to make some sense out of something so nonsensical. Pretty hard to do but you you have given it your best shot! talking to to more lib fem friends who say of this the feeling in their heads make them women, when told actual women are having their employment removed, is certainly causing them to sit up, take notice and say, this shouldn’t be happening.

not even a pretend lawyer

I see what you did there, Pencils

Obviously we are all concerned about this particular judgement and employment rights, but it has exposed a bigger problem - if employees at an organisation like the Centre for Global Development can't talk about sex because such talk "is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others" what is the future of women's rights?

Currently leaders of political parties and organisations like Amnesty can't talk about women without sounding as though they are trying to write copy for a tampon ad in 1984, so where does that leave women?

It might be full of errors, as I say I am not even a pretend lawyer.

I'm looking forward to reading some detailed analysis from actual proper lawyers.

@PencilsInSpace

That is a fantastic post. Such clarity.

It's so complicated, and lacks all the common sense, that it needs that kind of clear explanation.

And it's absolutely mad that we have to drill down to this degree.

The law around this issue is based on fantasy.

But at least you have managed to unravel it. Thank you very much.

Ahh thanks so much for this. I've not had time or headspace to try and disentangle these bits of the judgement - the bit about belief/lack of belief was making my head hurt.

Would be great if this could be pinned or made into a blog post, for reference....?

Yes, it doesn't have to be a medical process. A male who put on a dress and declared unequivocally 'I am a woman' would I think be covered.

However, where a person identifies as non-binary, gender fluid, moon gender or whatever, it's not clear they are reassigning their sex at all because those are not sexes. From the trans equality report:

95. Our evidence also called into question the extent to which the Act protects people with broader kinds of trans identities, who may not be seeking, or may not have sought, gender reassignment, medical or otherwise. We obtained a legal opinion on this point from expert barrister Claire McCann, who told us that people falling within such a broader definition of trans identity could have “no certainty” of being protected from discrimination.

96. Ms McCann explained that when the Equality Bill was going through Parliament the then Solicitor General had clearly indicated that it was only the provision in respect of discrimination by perception which would protect those members of “the wider transgender community” who did not come under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That is, they would only be protected if they were discriminated against because they were perceived to be proposing to undergo, to be undergoing or to have undergone gender reassignment. The difficulty with this provision is that there are likely to be cases where an individual from the wider trans community, is discriminated against because of who they are and not because they are perceived to be transsexual. Mr Morton gave us an example: “if they have come out as non-binary, they are being perceived as non-binary, not as transsexual”.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39007.htm#_idTextAnchor245

Good analysis Pencils, but one thing:

"reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Other attributes could just be dress?

I'm no lawyer either.

Thank you Pencils, that's a brilliant analysis.

Thank you, Pencils. It seemed to me to be an absolute farce of a judgement and I hope it gets comprehensively dismantled.

@PencilsInSpace
Super detailed post. thank you thank you thank you! My eyes have only been opened to the issues around AGP trans and women's rights recently. It's frankly terrifying how we are sleep walking into this under the guise of inclusivity and in the name of all things woke.
I am slack jawed Maya lost and I hope she appeals as it's a total travesty.