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."

p59 "The Tribunal drew no conclusions from the respondents’
coverage of ‘trans’ issues "

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?

yep. really quite a lot

"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?"

Yes, and a lot of "the complainant alleged a vague incident of transphobia but emails immediately after that time frame show the complainant actually praising the accused person for their "fantastic support" and not mentioning the incident at all.

And no mention of the alleged incident until many years afterwards.

Seems like a lot of Times employees really put themselves out to help the complainant. And their kindness was used against them.

I did laugh at the "double Andy Murray story" bit. Presume the same article was published twice in the same edition by mistake.

The complainant's boss was unhappy with the complainant's performance.

"We then discussed the fact that there had been 4 major errors on your watch since I joined The Times in mid January ; the rogue splash published to 7,000 Scottish readers; the wrong Alexander appearing in a stand first; the SNP being described as anti austerity in a headline; and a double Andy Murray story. I said I recognised that the workload and culture of the Scottish operation had changed, but stressed I could not accept it was “impossible to do your job without errors”.

Perhaps a career at Pink News might be more of a fit for the complainant.

I'm just reading through it right now - I have to say, the Times sound like an excellent employee, they really did bend over backwards.

Would it be really cynical of me to guess that the poor quality stories they kept trying to push at conference were trans related and pushed by their TRA allies?

If so it looks like a rare example of failed regulatory capture (not regulatory I know, but same idea)

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

tbf that's where I think it is maybe a bit important...had the Tribunal decided the coverage was relevant to the case it might well have had much wider implications ( NB reading through the company seem to have bent ovr backwards to be accomodating at the point of transition - sick leave over and above company scheme after surgery etc.

Seems to have gone wrong for the claimant when a woman got the Scotland job they thought they should get...seems that whatever else got removed during surgery - the sense of entitlement was left intact.

If so it looks like a rare example of failed regulatory capture

See also their lobbying about trans stories, and reeducating the executive editor of the Sunday times.

the sense of entitlement was left intact
Wasn’t it just? I keep going back and rereading bits where The Times seemingly tied themselves in knots to accommodate this employee’s every expressed wish and need and then some and it still wasn’t enough. All the while the employee was looking for any excuse to wangle cause for a ‘transphobia’ complaint. Some people do t know when they’re well off.

Good ruling but OMG! "The Tribunal considered it unfortunate and ill advised that Simon Pearson ‘deadnamed’ the claimant in his witness statement, which was prepared by the respondents’ solicitors. "

Presumably this was in his witness statement about the transition i.e

""Bob" (or whatever their name was before) had been working here for two years when she told us that he would be transitioning to female and would like to be known as Katherine from from the end of the month and be referred to as she and her. "

That makes sense as a witness statement of what happened.... instead they are supposed to say:

""Katherine had been working here for two years when she told us that she would be transitioning to female and would like to be known as Katherine from now on and be referred to as she and her"

.... history has to be rewritten says the tribunal??

Thanks for the link, Mrs Snippy Pants. It makes an interesting read. Given the findings of fact by the tribunal, I wonder what any grounds for appeal might be?

Seems to have gone wrong for the claimant when a woman got the Scotland job they thought they should get...seems that whatever else got removed during surgery - the sense of entitlement was left intact.

I thought that too. And that the woman in question must have been truly exceptional... yet did not get the job on a permanent basis despite having done a brilliant job, according to the evidence provided.

Then for O’Donnell to not apply for the permanent role, point this out to the boss, then double down when the boss asked for clarification as to whether O’Donnell wanted to apply.

I’d personally have taken that query as confirmation that the boss didn’t consider an application to be beyond hope, even if the likelihood of getting it was small. Applying, despite the poor chance of success, would be an indicator of ambition and a keeness to rise within the company. You can’t only apply for jobs you’re sure you will get if you want to get on.

Nothing like sour grapes to confirm that your decision not to promote an individual was 100% correct!

www.gofundme.com/f/transphobia-at-the-times?rcid=r01-156865854919-b68e60fe72174000&pc=tw_co_campmgmt_m

Money is being raised for an appeal, not through CrowdJustice interestingly. The grounds for appeal are not discussed.

God, that me me me me me narrative.

Keep it short. Keep it snappy. Make a point. Any point.

And the shoehorning in of Muslims and 'white supremacy'.

Dear God. Utterly shameless.

Quote from Kathy, ‘the tribunal did not understand our argument and came to the wrong conclusion.’

Err no Kathy, your argument is not valid. The Times were rightly reporting factual truths.

So basically this person's lawsuit is about being angry that they weren't able to #cancelJaniceTurner?

That's about the size of it. Insofar as accommodating the transition of an employee, the Times appears to have bent over backwards.

The judgement is not flattering to the claimant.

Yes, Katherine’s complaint seems to be that Katherine was not allowed to control the editorial narrative of the Times regarding trans issues

Because reading the judgment, Katherine would have to be seriously divorced from reality if Katherine doesn’t understand that Katherine was extremely well supported by Katherine’s employers during Katherine’s elective plastic surgery and changes in clothing choices

‘the tribunal did not understand our argument and came to the wrong conclusion.’

'cos they is all stupid.

O’Donnell should try to look on the bright side as they are now completely unemployable whilst being the wrong side of 50 - surely they must find this very validating as lots of women can testify? Not sexy enough I suppose 🤷‍♀️

Finally, a GenuineFemaleExperience for our cheeky young scamp!

I don’t understand why Katherine isn’t employable though? Surely Katherine is an experienced journalist?

Their crowd funder isn't doing very well.

Taking your boos to an employment tribunal tends to go down like a lead balloon with future employers.

Good. Congratulations to the times. Freedom of speech and common sense wins. It's a beautiful thing. 🎉🎊🍾🥂

I see Natacha Kennedy has thrown in a tenner. Generous support of an important case.