O'Donnell v Times unfair dismissal case

[MrsSnippyPants]

twitter.com/kathy__odonnell/status/1164787646536617984
"I am disappointed with the judgement of the tribunal in my discrimination and unfair dismissal case against Times Newspapers Ltd. Working with my barrister, we are considering an appeal.
To my witnesses and all who have supported me over the past two years, thank you."

I see O’Donnell’s barrister is someone who occasionally visits these boards to tell us how to woman properly.

GCAcademic - really? Blooming cheek.

I see O’Donnell’s barrister is someone who occasionally visits these boards to tell us how to woman properly.

No surprises there then.

Excellent news. Thanks for posting.

Gawd. 19 days

💪💪💪

There were 19 days of hearing, according to the Times article. That's a lot of legal costs. O'Donnell must have been very confident of succeeding.

Apparently, it's pretty unusual for a claimant to be ordered to pay costs.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/problems-at-work/employment-tribunals-from-29-july-2013/what-will-it-cost-to-make-a-claim-to-an-employment-tribunal/paying-costs-after-an-employment-tribunal-claim/

But what a waste of public money.

Thanks for the share token, Empress.

Happy to see this judgement.

Has not Katherine contributed here before about the case?

The tribunal does not accept the evidence of a ‘boys club’ during the claimant’s employment . . . there was a significant number of senior women in powerful positions.”

I thought this was interesting - sounds as if transgender didn't come into it, and was about sexism?

The tribunal does not accept the evidence of a ‘boys club’ during the claimant’s employment . . . there was a significant number of senior women in powerful positions.”

Are they really suggesting they were excluded from the 'boys club' because they are a woman??

The tribunal does not accept the evidence of a ‘boys club’ during the claimant’s employment

I have lots of thoughts about this particular statement.

Cross post Datun - i mused so long on what it was I wanted to say I missed it 😂

It may have escaped you sueanddumplings. But we are allowed to both have opinions, and swear. "Mumsnet - the one with all the swearing". It's positively encouraged.

Also, the boards are unmoderated, unless a post is reported.

Best get reporting then, hadn’t you Sue? Silly me, I’m sure you have already. Those women and their nasty words, eh?

Oh noes, did I, a mere woman, from the fastest depopulating local authority on the UK mainland, have the temerity to be unimpressed by someone whining about being offered an equal job in another part of the UK rather than being dumped on from a great height like so many of my family, friends and neighbours have been when their employers decided to 'move production' over the last 40 years?

Gosh, I'll try to never express annoyance at people who aren't particularly hard done to by comparison in future.

Want to bet the case against the guardian gets quietly dropped now?

I think that's unlikely. If they were sensible sorts who realised they didn't have a case, then yes. But TRAs are so very cocksure in their insistance that everyone kowtows completely that I suspect this will just make them more determined to take the Guardian on.

Hahaha what was offensive about that statement Sue? I mean if women have penises surely they have the ability to wank? 🤷🏼‍♀️

I see O’Donnell’s barrister is someone who occasionally visits these boards to tell us how to woman properly.

Oh I didn't realise White was one of the plonkers telling us how to woman right. What is White's username?

Very glad to see this result for the Times.

sue want some fish with that chip on your shoulder? You've got a report button there, if you're offended go argue it with MNHQ.

And you might want to check out some facts, such as the yesterday deleted post of the GC woman currently sleeping rough on the street because their trauma following sexual assault means they are unable to share facilities with males and every single refuge has been made mixed sex. And actively unwelcoming to women who need a single sex space, preferring them to sleep rough than meet their needs.

She was deleted by MNHQ for apparently explaining her fear of men and her situation; something someone obviously found offensive enough to report.

Oh that's terrible Michelle, I didn't see her post. I'm heartbroken and infuriated in equal measure. Without risking this poor woman's privacy did someone get a chance to offer or refer her to assistance and is she is ok? That's so upsetting, I'm tearing up I couldn't begin to imagine how she is feeling.

I think one of the FWR regulars is in touch with her, Dana, but it was a shocking situation.

Ah found the username. Unclear why someone so angry with the women here chooses to spend time posting.

Thanks for the share token, Empress.

You’re welcome, Prawn.