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."

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

Presumably Katherine O’Donnell was able to fund her own claim? I am fairly sure that unions will only support members going to an Employment Tribunal if they think the chances of winning are more than 50%.

As Pencils has written, such a contrast with the position of ordinary people who certainly couldn’t afford a barrister. I actually looked up Employment Tribunals on gov.uk and you have to go to ACAS first to see if the dispute can be resolved by Early Conciliation.

This thread has been quite a revelation - especially the bit about redeployment - which I don’t remember in the early news coverage. The irony is that Katherine O’Donnell felt less respected after transition. I wonder if David from The Telegraph is getting special Loss of Privilege training, alongside the speech therapy etc.

I read this last night and it cheered me no end after fuming about women’s sport this week.

I was worried the times would settle rather than defend it due to costs, I’m very glad they stuck by their principles even though it probably cost them more than it would have to make the matter go away quietly.

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.

“Women who were highly competent in their role and confident of expressing their professional opinion were frequently under-valued and their authority undermined by some of the male executives.

“I saw men of mediocre talent promoted beyond their abilities and women of exceptional talent held back.”

It's interesting that O'Donnell didn't notice this unequal treatment while O'Donnell was still living as a man. O'Donnell clearly had very little idea about what 'living as a woman' actually meant.

It's interesting that O'Donnell didn't notice this unequal treatment while O'Donnell was still living as a man. O'Donnell clearly had very little idea about what 'living as a woman' actually meant.

Yes really. How very ungrateful not to appreciate the authentic validation of their womanhood.

I wonder if David from The Telegraph is getting special Loss of Privilege training, alongside the speech therapy etc.

He went to Eton. He'll never suffer loss of privilege.

It's interesting that O'Donnell didn't notice this unequal treatment while O'Donnell was still living as a man. O'Donnell clearly had very little idea about what 'living as a woman' actually meant.

Indeed. One might wonder how it is that O’Donnell was completely blind to sex-based workplace iniquities that only became ‘immediately obvious’ the instant they transitioned.

Or did they only become ‘immediately obvious’ once the relocation was effected and O’Donnell required a peg upon which to hang their perceptions of ‘discrimination’?

I do hope that Robin White will pop by soon to explain to us how this is feminists fault really Robin so enjoys scolding us.

Don't worry Sophocles, there's already another one doing the rounds of the boards with a wagging finger and a sour attitude...

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.

They transitioned as soon as their probation was up. How long did they have to observe the difference?

No one in the world is buying the premise that a person who started the job presenting as male, and then transitioned after their probation was up, is then instantly subject to sexism.

It's so incoherent. It's either sexism, or transphobia.

It can't be both.

You can't discriminate by sex on the basis that you believe someone is both a male and a female.

From The Guardian 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.

The judgment added: “The tribunal found it incredible that an incident such as this would not have been the cause of a complaint, let alone a grievance, to any member of the management staff at the relevant time.”

That's quite the straight talking by the judge.

"Did not take place as alleged".

Ouch. That's got to hurt.

Very true datun

For O’Donnell to have suffered transphobia, the co workers would have to believe that ODonnell was a man. For O’Donnell to have suffered sexism, they’d have to believe O’Donnell was a woman.

It’s like Shrodinger’s co-worker.

I expect the answer is “it was both and therefore the discrimination is worse than a mere woman could ever conceive of”.

It's either sexism, or transphobia.

Castration anxiety?!

For O’Donnell to have suffered transphobia, the co workers would have to believe that ODonnell was a man. For O’Donnell to have suffered sexism, they’d have to believe O’Donnell was a woman.

It’s like Shrodinger’s co-worker.

YES! This exactly it!

As someone smarter than me said, one person can be a man for the privilege, a woman for the access, and trans for the oppression.

The claim of sexism was because they thought they could trojan horse it (noting: judge was female).

I think they knew the transphobia claim wouldn't stand up...

a comment O’Donnell said made her vomit involuntarily.

That involuntary vomiting that we women have to endure is a curse. Spraying puke all over the place...

As someone smarter than me said, one person can be a man for the privilege, a woman for the access, and trans for the oppression.

I love that, Datun. That’s the TRA mindset in a nutshell.

An Unholy Trinity so to speak Datun?
Yes, it’s funny because it’s true but really not funny at all.

For O’Donnell to have suffered transphobia, the co workers would have to believe that ODonnell was a man. For O’Donnell to have suffered sexism, they’d have to believe O’Donnell was a woman.

Perfectly put.

Judgement published I haven't read it yet, will plough through it this evening with

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d6e181bed915d53b0256ebd/O_Donnell_v_Times_Newspapers_-4107419-18-Final_Hearing.pdf

Pg 37 The claimant went on to provide an analysis of The Times coverage of trans issues including: “Analysis demonstrates that a disproportionate weight of coverage in The Times and Sunday Times has been based on the repetition of untruths originated and propagated by groups and by individuals who make no pretence of their antipathy to the very existence of trans people. Again and again the same rent a quote names appear – individuals whose credentials and qualifications to speak are woeful and collapse under scrutiny; some with long and disturbing histories of lying about misrepresenting and publicly abusing trans people.”

Thanks MrsSnippyPants

Hope the helps and I look forward to your analysis.

Just read it. Really interesting and detailed.

The claimant seems to have been ineffective at their job, off sick loads, and spent the rest of the time haranguing everyone for transphobia.

The Tribunal could find no evidence of the complainant's assertions of transphobia or discrimination.

The Times bent over backwards to accommodate the complainant. Suspect that they'd have little time for that behaviour now.

Would love to see the emails between the claimant and Janice Turner (which are referenced, but not detailed in the report). The complainant was trying to silence Turner.

The involvement of Robin White (barrister) towards the end of the complainant's employment come across as a shake-down to try to get The Times to settle for a huge payout.

Fortunately, The Times stood firm, and the truth came out eventually.

A big gamble for the complainant. Because this is all in the public domain now - and any prospective employer will be able to look at this behaviour.

The complainant is a board member of Equality Network in Scotland. This lobby group advises the Scottish Government. And is funded by the Scottish Government.

The Tribunal could find no evidence of the complainant's assertions of transphobia or discrimination.

There's a lot of "we do not accept this happened or happened in the way the claimant said it did" in there, isn't there?

The impression I got was quite the tale of imagined narc injury.

ProbablyShouldntbut

That was interesting. It seems the main issue for this former employee was who The Times spoke to and quoted in the articles.