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."

Costs are rarely awarded against claimants in the employment tribunal, unfortunately

Hey sueanddumplings how about breaking a habit if an MN life and engaging rather than dump and run?

They can’t. The TRAs have no robust counter-argument. That’s why it’s all ‘no debate’ and drive-by shrieks of ‘transphobia!!!!’

GirlDownUnder I think I've had two biscuits. Easily outnumbered by the suggestion that I off.

I love that they look like Jammy Dodgers - my favourites.

Excellent result. O'Donnell might not have any grounds for appeal. You can't appeal just because you disagree with the decision:

An appeal must be on a point of law, i.e. it must identify flaws in the legal reasoning of the original decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal will not normally re–examine issues of fact.

www.judiciary.uk/publications/employment-appeal-tribunal-guidance/

What? So the Times is out-of-pocket and not at fault? That seems unfair. The journalist should have to pay The Times’ full costs I think.

Slight derail but why would a grown up person, who aspires to a professional profile, describe themselves as a "scamp"?

“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.”

That's the problem with transing. You're not in the boys club any more. But you're not in the girls club either.

It's fair enough that employees don't risk having to pay costs if they take their employer to tribunal. Otherwise very few employees could afford to do so and all our employment rights would be worth shit.

Employers take out insurance for this sort of thing.

Pencils the problem with disproportionate costs risk has been amply illustrated by the Canadian human rights tribunal system.

Often it is cheaper and easier to settle and give a modest payout, but that gives people of a vexatious/grifting nature confidence to keep at it and up their game.

And paying out the odd £2-5K is no mean expense for a small employer.

Also, as someone who once worked in insurance, it bugs the hell out of me as a matter of principle just settling because it's cheaper. Those costs have to be offset - guess where? When the premiums go up.

Slight derail but why would a grown up person, who aspires to a professional profile, describe themselves as a "scamp"?

Think it goes with a mischievous twinkle in the eye and a merry toss of shiny locks. Or some kind of tossing, anyway.

I was struck by an unnerving resemblance to the late, lamented Dear Lady - Dame Hilda Bracket. Similar in many significant features.

Employers take out insurance for this sort of thing

That is a sweeping generalisation

For every O'Donnell there are a fuckton of ordinary, low waged employees who have been unfairly dismissed because they are pregnant / wrong race / have a disability / pursued a sexual harassment complaint / they're a whistleblower, or they've been bullied and harassed because of a personal vendetta, or have faced unfair redundancy or have been denied sick pay, holiday pay, maternity pay, just their normal pay ... or they've been denied adequate breaks, protective equipment, adequate training to do their job safely, or their employer has them in some sort of bogus self employed contract or just hasn't paid their NI ... or many other disgraceful things.

And if ordinary low waged employees cannot afford to bring any of these bread and butter cases to tribunal because they risk having to pay their employer's legal costs if they lose then we can all wave goodbye to our most basic employment rights because they are unenforceable.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The ET appear to be quite good at 'sifting' cases from what I have seen - I don't think many truly vexatious cases get through. It would be interesting to look at the thresholds and compare them with BCHRT.

How is it a sweeping generalization MargueritaBlue? Of course prudent employers take out insurance against being sued by employees; even if the complainant doesn’t win a case, the cost of defending it can be eye-wateringly expensive. It’s swings and roundabouts though - where a company gains on not paying the lawyers in a settlement, they lose on the much higher insurance premiums in perpetuity after insurers have settled a case. I’d say it would be foolish not to have that kind of insurance in these litigious times.

I’ve never worked in a company that had insurance against employment claims.

Defending a claim can bankrupt a small business.

And IME the system is not very good at eliminating claims with poor prospects.

I think the system needs a complete overhaul.

Great result.

The last thing we need is a press afraid to print stories in case they offend a staff member (and the unintended consequence would be not hiring women and minorities. We’d be back the 1950s workplace before we know it).

Here’s another scamp looking professional at work! It’s uncanny how they seem to have so much in common...

Additional details here:

www.pressgazette.co.uk/transgender-ex-times-journalist-loses-discrimination-claim-against-paper/

No doubt the Guardian is relieved:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/23/transgender-journalist-discrimination-claim-times-newspaper

O’Donnell was undergoing gender reassignment when she joined the Times as a staff sub-editor in January 2004 and presented as a man until her probation period had ended.

In her witness statement, she said: “Once I transitioned to a female role in the office, the quality of my work did not lessen but it was immediately obvious to me that a number of the senior men in the office applied unequal standards to male and female colleagues.

Starts to dress as a woman as soon as their probation period is up. And claims the reaction is sexism?

The real question is how did they ever think a tribunal would buy it?

From The Gusrduan article:

During the hearing, O’Donnell said she overheard the then deputy editor and deputy head of news refer to murdered trans women in India as “a lifestyle choice” – a comment O’Donnell said made her vomit involuntarily.

However, she did not report it until four and a half years after it was claimed to have happened, and the judge ruled this apparent incident “did not take place as alleged” by the claimant.

During the hearing, O’Donnell said she overheard the then deputy editor and deputy head of news refer to murdered trans women in India as “a lifestyle choice” – a comment O’Donnell said made her vomit involuntarily.

According to stonewall being a part time cross dresser is trans. Being a transvestite is trans. Being a raging AGP is trans. It's not a medical condition or a mental health issue either. Acceptance without exception.

Vomit away, but take it up with stonewall.

In her judgment, she concluded O’Donnell’s redundancy was not as a result of being a trans woman, a status protected by law.

Wrong. And they know it. Awful reporting.

How is it a sweeping generalizationMargueritaBlue? Of course prudent employers take out insurance against being sued by employees;

It's a sweeping generalisation because it isn't correct. It certainly isn't my experience that this is widespread and general - quite the opposite.

Sorry for the derail about scamps but the person in AnyOldPrion 's picture might almost have used JellyfishAndShells description as a recipe. A very scampy look indeed.

The tribunal result is of course a pleasing victory for justice.