CGD is not appealing Maya's judgment! Employment tribunal can proceed

how a court declared her belief was kind of like homophobia but not quite as bad as Nazism, like that's some kind of triumph.

The court said that:

-Maya's beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society
-Her beliefs are widely shared
-Her beliefs are consistent with the law.

''Buckets of evidence''? She accidentally misgendered someone on Twatter, which is an honest mistake even orgs like Mermaids are guilty of, and spoke about Bunce (who as far as I'm aware has never said they're a woman?)

That's not harassment or discrimination, unless those words have also been redefined to suit.

he ruled Forstater's beliefs as protected because any belief short of Nazism could be held to be protected

You conveniently forgot to add that he also said: 111. Most fundamentally, the Claimant’s belief does not get anywhere near to approaching the kind of belief akin to Nazism or totalitarianism

Nice try though.

See p56 for the judge explaining people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

We didn't need a judge to tell us that, people with protected characteristics (and not just the gender reassignment) are protected from discrimination and harassment in law. Also a good job that's not what Maya plans to do then, isn't it? 😊

people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

None of which Maya did, time to stop flogging that falsehood it could cost you.

www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj

See page 3 for the judge explaining (for the first of many times) that he ruled Forstater's beliefs as protected because any belief short of Nazism could be held to be protected. See pages 19 and 48 for the comparison between Forstater's beliefs and homophobic beliefs. See p56 for the judge explaining people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

Keep twisting BlueberryCheescake9.

Judges end up with real difficulties because of the fact that freedom of speech comes into play and that is a very sticky subject. In fact Maya has a right to free speech and there is no right not to be offended in the UK. That has already been stated in UK law. The argument of hostile environment is really thin, is my guess manderlay. If the Tribunal found against Maya and this had an impact on free speech, you can betya the government would be looking at this very closely.

The proposals for Hate speech legislation will be unlikely to go forward because they are too draconian.

Cool story bro.

They're probably not appealing because the judge all but came out and said that despite his judgment about protected beliefs, Forstater would still likely lose a new tribunal. He made it very clear having a protected belief doesn't protect your actions, that you're still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and that employers are entitled to take action against you if you do, and indeed might face legal action themselves if they don't. Due to Forstater's excessive social media presence, she's left buckets of evidence all over that she's been doing exactly that, and honestly CGD are laughing at this point, why bother to appeal the appeal when they've basically been handed a route to win outright at a new tribunal.

I'm surprised honestly MF even is taking it to a new tribunal given the high likelihood she'll lose again, just on slightly different grounds. Better to stop now so she could stop on a (lukewarm) win. I honestly assumed that's what she could do, so then at least she could continue to crow about how a court declared her belief was kind of like homophobia but not quite as bad as Nazism, like that's some kind of triumph.

The fact that this is a US company says it all. They will be trying to push UK law in this case. They are giving it a go in so many areas but are coming unstuck for not understanding UK law or at least thinking it is in line with US law.

I know no more than the next person, but my guess is they will argue that:

• the tweets could cause a discriminatory environment for trans employees and clients. By allowing employees to manifest beliefs in that specific way on twitter- where many followers are from the same profession- they could not maintain an environment free from discrimination and harrasment, using a v broad definition of discrimination and harrassment. And possibly using a broad definition of the work place/ work environment. So it will come down to the specific tweets which were about the gra reforms, & philip bunce? The judge will have to decide if publishing opinions on twitter can create a discriminatory environment in the workplace, and if so, whether those specific tweets did so. I hope they don't win on this basis, or freedom of speech is buggered.

• or, whatever commitments she made to using preferred pronouns etc were not good enough, and so they couldn't be sure to avoid future harrassment.

• avoiding reputational and brand damage? Seems unlikely.

I think they will decide that the company could have explored more ways to balance the rights, and should not just have dropped her.

I expect what happened was that the American company didn't realise they had obligations to freelancers, got rid of her when it got tricky, and are now having to retro fit.

The usual hyperbole about GC people wanting to eliminate trans people, harass them at work, etc., etc. If I had a £1 for the amount of times that ludicrous rhetoric is trotted out I'd be a multi millionaire.

I really like Audrey's threads on this stuff, as she's really good at explaining things in a way I can understand.

@howard97A that was dealt with at a earlier hearing (before the "belief worthy of respect" hearing) and it was found that Maya was an “employee” within the meaning of the Act.

Basically another case of an American employer failing to understand that UK employment law applies to them.

I'm not a lawyer but I've read many times that the act protects those on fixed term contracts too although there may be a higher bar needed to win your case.

There is the technical argument that Maya is not entitled to the protection of the Employment Act because she wasn’t an “employee” within the meaning of the Act.. Any lawyers have a view on that?

Way too late but as it's been bugging me - the judgement did specifically say that these views were worthy of respect, not just that the original judgment was wrong in saying they weren't.

Not only is it worthy of respect, but it is also one that is consistent with the common law... (quote from the judgement)

Yes, absolutely.

It is important also to remember the context of Maya's tweets - she was tweeting in response to a government consultation on the GRA.

I think preventing women from discussing sex based rights as laid out in the EA could constitute discrimination.

Also, doesn't it look like they don't have a particularly robust social media policy in pace for their employees, so suggests Maya also wouldn't feel she had to watch what she said on her personal account? This is a Comms guy.

I imagine standup that so many companies and organisations could be doing exactly that and should, if they have any sense, be looking very carefully at whether implementing Stonewall Law has been impacting on women.

Charities seem to be a law unto themselves and time the Charities Commission had a close look

I would have thought the CGD is creating a pretty hostile work environment for its female employees by pursuing this witch hunt and allowing the sorts of social media statements as archived above. Not an employment lawyer but couldn’t it be indirect discrimination?