Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

Could well have been a small key-code locked corridor or community building where the team all know each other. Still quite normal to give a quick nod or "hi" in passing and then return to an existing conversation.

Well self-indulgent appears to be a prerequisite for folks like Haech. The narcissism is off the charts.

I've only read this thread, not the actual judgement but am I right in thinking this all took place in an actual hospital?

Sorry to keep harping on about the corridor interaction but I reckon from my car to my computer is about 200 yards and takes maybe 5 minutes. I'd guess I meet around 10-15 people on the way, some I know better than others, some I don't even know their name but I greet them all with a "Hiya" or "Morning" and pass on.This is in a bog standard office building with maybe 500 staff in on any given day.

Hospitals are absolutely teeming with people. On a walk of 200 yards in a hospital you will probably pass at least 50 if not 100 other people, there's just no time or space in a hospital corridor for social chit chat.

It's just such self-indulgent bollocks.

Honestly the extremity of gender ideology absurdity in the NHS (in this case and in others) makes Green Wing look like a bastion of tame sanity. Not even Michelle Gomez's character matches the actual NHS for bizarre surrealist cruelty towards colleagues, not even when she brings a camel into the office.

" the claimant has taken steps to change attributes of their sex from female, by changing their name to a name which can be identified as of either sex"
It can't really be identified as a name though can it?

😂

I loved that show.

I'm now imagining a modern day version where Sue (Michelle Gomez) "misgenders" Caroline (Tamsin Grieg) as a running theme every episode by making the assumption that Caroline's short hair means she's a man.

Caroline eventually gets fed up, so plots with Guy (Stephen Mangan) to buy some portable blinds to put up on a glass partition that separates the two women (admittedly that's not how the set was.... but, I'm using artistic licence here).

When the blinds arrive it turns out that Sue had had exactly the same plan, mostly because she didn't want to be peered at by a man.... And by way of bad luck, Caroline hadn't spotted that the blinds came in a choice of blue or pink only. Sue had chosen pink, because obviously that's what all girls do (#sarcasm).... whereas blue had been delivered as a default to Caroline because she didn't make a choice when ordering.

The supposed "choice" of blue makes Sue even more certain that Caroline really is a man.

No, I'm not a comedy writer. Yes, I'm sure that could have been better 😂 But the actual tribunal appears to be a comedy script of its own.

It would be (and in Haech's case, was) like something out of Green Wing.

I imagine these temporary blinds could become essential office drawer kit for the more sensitive redditors affected by this case. (Images to follow pending review).

They are free of any sharp fittings so would also be ideal for sensitive air travelllers. In two handy colours: white semi-opaque for a first offence, and complete blackout for tribunal-pending situationships.

And what a sentence to misgender on!!

"This incident had nothing to do with the events in October which
centred around the claimant’s belief that she had been misgendered."

133. In respect of the incident on 31 January when the claimant says Ms Dunn failed to acknowledge them and turned away, it is clear that Ms Dunn did acknowledge the claimant. She said “hi”. This was three months after the original incidents and having seen each other in between without any apparent problem, it was not reasonable for Ms Dunn’s innocuous conduct to have had the effect upon the claimant’s environment which they allege. In any event we are not satisfied that any conduct was related to the claimant being non binary. This incident had nothing to do with the events in October which centred around the claimant’s belief that she had been misgendered.

I think it's fairly common for some people to be very sensitive and sometimes wonder if others are being off with them. But usually we sit on those thoughts and allow things to move on, and are pleased to find we were mostly wrong, later on!

I can't imagine making even the most awful colleague a named respondent in an employment tribunal because of how I felt about a situation that occured almost entirely inside my head!

I have worked with some absolute horrors over the years, who were genuinely rude to people they didn't like, but I'd never heard of individuals being named in an ET before Dr Upton this year, and it took quite a while before that made sense to me.

I'm pretty sure that Haech must have been strongly encouraged to bring the case in the way she did. She sounds like a terrible colleague, but also extremely fragile to have taken this all the way to tribunal. She must have had a team around her (the union?) telling her what she wanted to hear instead of what she needed to hear. I hope she has learnt from the very harsh lesson of exposure, and doesn't let herself get led down the road to an appeal that will almost certainly be extremely hard on her, even if there are potential gains to be made for her 'side'.

Me neither.

Well Professor Yiffle I’m so very glad you did find it, it whiled away a boring Ryanair flight for me, 30 pages of incredible nonsense. My mirth caused by this very thread didn’t discommode my fellow passengers enough for them to put up paper curtains to screen me from them thankfully. One wonders though that out there in the real world people at work are taking offense about ‘how’ a colleague says ‘hi’ to them.

Where do you see the conflict between outlawing discrimination on the grounds of GR and women's rights to be?

Given that nobody actually needs to have the PC of GR to be protected from discrimination (as in discrimination by perception) we are all protected on that ground. So to answer your question as to whom that means - it means everyone.

Outlawing discrimination on the grounds of GR doesn't require allowing men to use women only services so I don't see that it means very much at all for other protected characteristics.

That is exactly why the judgment goes on to consider whether there would have been a case to answer for harassment even though they didn't have to consider it - and they found there was no harassment etc anyway.

How surprising that posters on the sub are ignoring that inconvenient fact as they froth about "harassment" of trans people supposedly being legalised.

I would not be at all surprised if the claimant is active on that sub.

If you wanted to keep an eye out, you could check the BAILII recent case decisions page for the UK employment tribunal and employment appeal tribunal. The listing gives an indication of what each case was about so you can identify which ones you want to open for a closer read.

https://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#uk/cases/UKET

https://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#uk/cases/UKEAT

I haven't yet read the whole judgment but I did snigger a bit about the IT problems: paragraph 19: "...the claimant noticed that their deadname continued to appear in the Microsoft Teams appointments in their outlook calendar and when sending emails." That issue seemed to have been resolved when the claimant's laptop had been rebooted.

It reminded me of Roy's standard response in The IT Crowd: Have you tried turning it off and on again.

As for Haech: I keep reading it as in hic, haec, hoc - Latin for "this", where "haec" is the singular feminine or plural neuter.

i wonder if there is someone, anyone, working in the NHS who is putting two and two together in terms of patient care and very very delicate snowflakes who will always centre themselves and their wishes.

Once-upon-a-time, not-so-long-ago the least popular person in the office was usually The-Man-Who-Made-Everything-Into-A-Double-Entendre or The-Woman-That-Constantly-Sells-Charity-Raffle-Tickets-You-Don’t-Want-To-Buy.

Now it’s Mx-Pronoun-The-Genderbased-Grievance-Goblin.

It's very frustrating to read where the judgement says that because she had changed her name and asked people to use "they" pronouns the claimant was "on a journey" away from the female sex. I can see the argument that there was some small movement away from woman gender, but changing your name from Mary to Mark and your pronouns from "She" to "he" don't change your sex, or even start to change your sex, from female to male, which is the clear implication here.