The arts are still captured - Denise Fahmy

Interesting.

I noticed this letter in the Observer

So this has ended and judgment will follow. It seems to mostly centre on HR dignity at work and disciplinary process but the claimant and her barrister are querying why she was singled out. They also are challenging why "gender critical comments" at the drop in session weren't also investigated as some of the TRA staff complained about this (when do they not though).

From the claimant's barrister's summing up:

AA Those are my subs.
J Is it the C's case that if we find Victimisation there is a breach of the implied terms.
AA yes
J When you say action politically motivated - do you mean action against employees who see GC views as transphobic.

AA About employees who felt they faced transphobic and anti-trans behaviour at the drop-in. All correspondents aligned with that position. The political judgement was to totally ignore the concerns of the transphobic caucus - they weren't investigated at all

J confusion re terminology. Do you mean the views of the community who were saying they were facing transphobic behaviour were ignored.

AA yes. The Rs went looking for a witch and found 3, but they looked at 141 which was political with a small 'p'.

J If politically motivated against only those people who supported the petition.

AA Who knows what R intended. Found 3 in support, could have found 10.

J Yes, there were 141 signatories, 41 comments, only taken action against 3.
AA You don't look through 141 comments if you are not looking for a witch.
J JF?
JF Political action of R in favour of GC is mirror image of Fahmy. My client is probably thinking they can't win.

AA Can I make one point, out of order?
J Not if it's out of order [laughs] but...
AA R should have investigated both sides, GC and not. Why didn't they.
J Looking forward. Meeting on 29th August. 16th of August for any further subs. List remedy hearing if needed: 23 or 25 Oct

I'll be very interested to see what happens.

She resigned (although it seems she got a job offer) and so is claiming constructive dismissal.

So ACE are saying she was disciplined due to the wording of her comment on the petition.

The claimant says that she feels that there was an agenda and she wasn't treated fairly, and her own grievance which she raised as a result of the disciplinary should have been dealt with first.

From the link

The law says victimisation means 'suffering a detriment' because you've done or intend to do a 'protected act'.
A 'protected act' means taking action related to discrimination law. This includes:
• making a complaint of discrimination or harassment
• supporting someone else's complaint
• gathering information that might lead to a complaint
• acting as a witness in a complaint
• saying something or giving evidence that does not support someone else's complaint
The law also protects a person from victimisation when someone else thinks the person has done or intends to do any of the things above.
'Detriment' means someone experiences one or both of the following:
• being treated worse than before
• having their situation made worse

Acting in good faith
The law only protects someone from victimisation if they've done something 'in good faith'. This means not acting maliciously.
Someone is not protected from victimisation if they:
• deliberately give false evidence
• deliberately make a false allegation of discrimination or harassment

Example of victimisation
Luca was a witness at an employment tribunal, supporting a colleague who made a claim of sex discrimination.
Luca applies for a promotion and does not get it. A member of the selection panel says Luca is a troublemaker who supported a discrimination claim against the company.
If this is the reason for the panel's decision, Luca is being victimised.

www.acas.org.uk/discrimination-and-the-law/victimisation

I think she's maybe claiming that she was a witness to discrimination against trans people, and she's been victimised because of it.

www.acas.org.uk/witnessing-discrimination

She's claiming victimisation based on them (ACE) having an agenda that didn't consider that she was supporting trans colleagues.

She thinks it's protected under the EA, surely that can only relate to the 'religion/belief' characteristic? We are inching closer to a belief in gender identity being Grainger tested - it has to happen eventually. Be interesting when it does!

I think supporting a protected characteristic can be a protected act as well and discrimination against someone for doing that is under the protected category in question. I don't think she's necessarily relying on Religion or Belief, but she could be. I think this is interesting because it's maybe going to hinge on "manifestation" rather than the act itself.

JF: You resigned on 7, confirmed this on 8th, and this was done before you had sent he investigation report
AIW: yes
JF: Why didn't you wait
AIW: Felt like it was predecided

JF: What are the options for hearing
AIW: There are options- training would probably be the most appropriate. Feels it had been decided- I am being disciplined for supporting trans colleagues

Now I understand (many thanks @lcakethereforeIam ) I think she believes that her support of trans people is the protected characteristic.

How convenient that line would be for rapists.

Does this mean a belief in gender identity is being posited as WORIADS?

Could be, I took it to mean that what she thought of as supporting trans people in her workplace was the protected act.

Worthy Of Respect In A Democratic Society, after Maya's win.

What is 'WORIADS'? Sorry to ask, but I've no idea.

More about the comments:

work. Investigation first.
C: Yes
JF: CA talks about comments being graded by seriousness. Cat A comments were focus.

This wasn't about people putting their name to a petition. It was about serious comments.
C: Er so its about the comments rather than signatures, yeah
JF: So you did understand that?
C: Yeah

JF: Here you say you have not provided a response to the disciplinary allegations. Why wouldn't your complaint be the defence to the allegations?
C: Im just saying I want my complaint dealt with separately
JF: 3rd bullet. CA is clear that its not that you supported t colleagues

Its your comments
C: It says my comments met the criteria before we've had the investigation so already I feel like a decision had been made...
JF: My point is the reason for the disc. is not that you support t colleagues its the nature of your comments
C: Its the same thing

AA: JF didn't articulate the PA correctly as in Cs evidence. The comments themselves were part of the PA for her.
J: Ok thank you.

JF: My point is that CA's email is about the comments and the nature of them. It wasn't signing the petition or leaving other non-offensive comments. My follow up point, is your DaW complaint doesn't really engage with CA's point about why the disciplinary is happening.

JF: Para 16 of your WS. Your victimisation claim is you were treated detrimentally bc of your protected act. What is the protected act is what the ET must decide. The only ref to the PA is at end of para 16. Its your speaking up. I take this to mean your comment?
C: Yes

JF: Three bullets of allegations. Underneath CA says these allegations relate to comments on a petition. R was clear from the start that's what it was about?
C: Yes
JF: Your WS says those comments were a PA?
C: Absolutely supporting t colleagues

She is claiming that her comment, which was partially reproduced in Denise Fahmy's judgment as I copied from it, was a protected act under the Equality Act, presumably the gender reassignment characteristic.

Some of her comment (from the judgment)

"If I came to work one day, and attended a drop-in session where staff members were openly making racist statements, and asking Arts Council what protection will be offered to them as race-critical staff members - I would feel terrified. I can't imagine what my trans and nb colleagues are feeling right now..."

Para 40

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ac0f5ce1aab2000c03ac7d/MsDDFahmyvvArtsCouncillEngland6000042-20222Judgment.pdf

JF: You conflate GC with racism dont you?

C: The term race critical.. discrimination hurts. I dont understand how GC interacts. Im looking at it from a trans perspective with no understanding of GC being protected. It was entirely to support t colleagues.

JF: As of today you are denying your comments could be seen as harassment?

C: Yes

JF You first posted on 11 May at [time x]. The email from SB was sent at 1.39. So within 8 minutes of receiving her email you signed the petition and put your comment on it?

C: I cant really remember. If that's what it says on a timestamped document but I cant remember

JF: As we explored, your knowledge was relatively incomplete, you weren't at drop-in and so on but quite strong comments from you. Do you think you acted rashly?

C: Possibly yes.

And this person is the diversity officer?!