Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 6

The question for the tribunal is whether the treatment complained of occurred because of the claimant's political opinion or because of concerns arising from the perceived impact of the public controversy upon the respondent organisation and the claimant's role within it.

Well it's not a political opinion to say that people can't change sex. It's a biological fact. So that's a red biro line.

These judges need to realise that they are only presiding over first instance tribunals. They may think it makes them Very Important while they fuck around with people's lives. In legal circles, they are just small potatoes, as my Nan used to say. I hope that she appeals, but it's a hell of a strain I realise.

What a farce. I do hope she appeals.

Terrible news. I’m so sorry, Sara.

Just putting this here.

https://jkrwf.org/

That tribunal was a mess and I really hope Sara appeals.

Interesting timing. The NI Assembly and the UK Parliament now are both in recess(?).

7 1/2 months to come to a decision!

There are some very unworldly people who work in the judiciary.

Really sorry to hear this. Sara, if you're reading this, sending solidarity.

That tribunal was a farce from start to finish.

Oh that’s very bad news. I’m so sorry for Sara. Is it appealable, does anyone with more knowledge than me, think?

Hmm. Calling lawyers: was this really "the question for the Tribunal"? Doesn't this open the door to "oh, we're not prejudiced, it's just that our customers are, so we have no choice but to avoid employing black people" and the like?

93. The tribunal has considered whether the claimant was treated less favourably than the hypothetical comparator identified at paragraph 68, namely an employee occupying the same role as the claimant whose circumstances were the same or not materially different save that they did not hold the claimant's political opinion. The tribunal accepts that the email arose directly from the claimant's public speech and the views expressed within it. The question for the tribunal is whether the treatment complained of occurred because of the claimant's political opinion or because of concerns arising from the perceived impact of the public controversy upon the respondent organisation and the claimant's role within it.
94. The tribunal finds that a hypothetical employee occupying the position of Inclusion and Diversity Officer who had publicly expressed a different political opinion, but whose public comments had generated a similar level of concern among stakeholders and Board members regarding the organisation's reputation, stakeholder relationships and confidence in the employee's ability to fulfil the role, would have been likely to attract similar discussion. In particular, the tribunal finds that consideration would similarly have been given to whether that employee should continue to participate in a specific project pending resolution of the matter. The tribunal is satisfied that the focus of the email was not the claimant's political opinion as such but the perceived consequences arising from the public controversy and its potential impact upon the organisation.

Just seen Nick Wallis's blog on this. I am very disappointed for Sara but not really surprised given the conduct of the tribunal generally.

Oh thats shit, Im so sorry for Sara.

The tribunal panel were a strange bunch and it was all very Royston Vasey N.I. version. I'm so sorry Sarah if you are reading this.

That's dreadful. Poor, poor Sara. Sadly, I'm shocked but not surprised at this judgment as I think a lot of us were deeply unimpressed by the tribunal panel at the time.

Absolutely appalled by this. I have no words. Poor Sarah.

What a shitshow. Amongst many others.
That Judge was so full of her own importance too. I hope that when it lands it is at least more coherent than Judge Kemp and his invisible learned friend.

I think that she identified as a judge too🙄

Nick Wallis reports the lady judge was on personal leave for three months which explains part of the delay.

You do remember correctly, but it shouldn't cause delay. The ex member has no further involvement, and at the stage she stepped down wouldn't have left any 'work in prgress' to be dealt with. If anything it should be quicker to make a decision with a panel of 2 than of 3.

How on earth can it take this long? It's a tribunal judgement¹, not a baby.

¹ And really not a difficult one.

If I remember correctly, wasn't this The One With The Fake Professor? And she stepped back from the tribunal panel, mid-way into the proceedings? Could that be delaying the judgement in any way?

This should have been a straightforward judgement. I can only assume we have a perverse judgement in tbe offing and the judge is struggling with the word salad to justify it.