Maya Forstater court case

[Bardonnay]

Sorry to link to the DM but they've covered Maya Forstater's upcoming court case here:
https://mol.im/a/7683207.

Maya's account of events is here and her post links to updates about the case: https://medium.com/@MForstater/i-lost-my-job-for-speaking-up-about-womens-rights-2af2186ae84

This board would be shut down faster than you can say 'literal violence'.

Everywhere would be shut down.
there will be no distinction made between male and female, your children will be taught some people randomly have on set of sexual organs and another bunch have another with no way of categorizing them into groups.

The judge doesn't have to decide one or the other is the truth, he has to decide if employment protection doesn't apply to a person that believes humans are a dimorphic species and that one sex can't change to the other, and talks about that publically.

Surely there is no other sensible finding to be had!

You would think. I don't have a great deal of faith left in institutions though.

But on balance the judicial system has fared best thus far. Maria Mc, Miranda, Linda & Venice. This one is a really big test however because it's beliefs and not just actions.

he has to decide if employment protection doesn't apply to a person that believes humans are a dimorphic species and that one sex can't change to the other, and talks about that publically

Doesn’t it sound completely insane that we’re having this conversation at all when you put it so clearly?

The judge doesn't have to decide one or the other is the truth, he has to decide if employment protection doesn't apply to a person that believes humans are a dimorphic species and that one sex can't change to the other, and talks about that publically.

Doesn't it just sound crazy? I'm running out of words...

I'm not a lawyer so this could be completely wrong, but, I'm cautiously optimistic that the "belief" part has come first - and has had such an extensive hearing.

These few days are (I think) called a positions hearing - this isn't the actual employment tribunal, which will happen at some future date. At present it is about establishing what the framework for the tribunal hearing will be, and there are two things to establish - firstly whether Maya counted as employed by the organisation and secondly whether her views and her expression of those views constitute a "Grainger test" belief.

You would have thought that the judge would have chosen to do the employment status first, surely? Much less contentious. And, if it turned out she was not "employed" in the legal sense, then none of the belief stuff would have been heard at all, because there would not be going to be any employment tribunal after all.

the closing submissions are much less clear cut and blatant untruths are going unchallenged.

Don't worry about this. Each side gets a chance uninterrupted to put their closing case. Maya's lawyer has said Maya's evidence was unfairly represented by the respondents in their closing speech ( presumably the bit about misgendering). The judge has given them both time to go away and look over that at lunchtime and come back at 3pm to make further submissions on it.

Haha, cross post @BernardBlacksWineIceLolly

Yeah but, no (sorry couldn’t resist) vivarium, the judge isn’t deciding that sex is/isn’t immutable (though if he did that would be lovely too, thanks) is he? He’s deciding whether affirming that sex is immutable qualifies as a philosophical belief and is therefore protected speech - or am I missing something?

"in which the dictionary definition of woman caused Maya to lose her job."

The judge said yesterday that it was a bit much to sanction someone over the dictionary definition.

They denied that and said she was harassing and discriminating, hence all the stuff about it not being about Quentin. Which Quentin responded to by saying Maya was obsessed with genitals and people would be tweeting about genitals. Which only Quentin mentioned as Anya pointed out.

Their case is not that anyone has to believe in gender identity, it's that it is a given and that speaking about the sex of humans with a gender identity that differs is harassment but they have shown no evidence of harassment.

The entire GRA consultation would count as harassment in this scenario.

Asking someone if they identify as the sex assigned at birth is harassment in this scenario. It's massive over reach.

You would have thought that the judge would have chosen to do the employment status first, surely? Much less contentious. And, if it turned out she was not "employed" in the legal sense, then none of the belief stuff would have been heard at all

That’s a great point. I wonder why that wasn’t heard first?

Question - If these are closing submissions, will the judge then make a decision on the case? Or is it closing submissions for the tweets/beliefs etc and then a further few days of argument regarding Maya’s employment status? They don’t seem to have covered that at all at this stage? Thanks

Perhaps this is an issue the tribunal feels it should rule on. There does seem to be a lacuna in the law.

Am encouraged by themostbeautiful's post about a belief that is grounded in science still being a belief.

I'd completely forgotten that this is a positions hearing and am equally baffled as to why the judge didn't hear the employment status bit first. Still, it's good to have the arguments aired and discover (what a surprise) that the employer's argument is so feeble.

"Doesn’t it sound completely insane that we’re having this conversation at all when you put it so clearly?"

The dismissal was unfair on this basis. The insanity was the cavalier attitude of the dismissers to employment law in this country. The HR Director clearly thought just not renewing a contract was safe as a get out, but US employment rights are much weaker in the US so he really misjudged this.

The glimmer of hope I'm holding onto here is thinking about the decision of the judge in the Yaniv case. Despite the judge apparently being v pro trans, they came down like a ton of bricks against Yaniv in their judgement. The court can only deal in facts. ( tho how they're going to determine whether one belief, aka 'fact', has more merit than the other, I have no idea! )

You would have thought that the judge would have chosen to do the employment status first, surely? Much less contentious. And, if it turned out she was not "employed" in the legal sense, then none of the belief stuff would have been heard at all

Better this way round. If Maya fails on this she presumably is pretty sunk, as are we, regardless of her employment status.

This is the day in court that she crowdfunded for.

If she wins this, but then fails to convince the court that she has an unfair dismissal case because of her employment status, the precedent has still been set.

but they have shown no evidence of harassment

Thank you Water for that clarification. Surely if they have provided no evidence of harassment, that won’t fly? I am still baffled as to why the nature of her employment status wasn’t heard first?

tho how they're going to determine whether one belief, aka 'fact', has more merit than the other, I have no idea!

I'm not sure they have to, They just have to say that Maya has the right to discuss and express her view.

My pint is this poor decision on employment status is why they are desperate to prove harassment. That's why Quentin is a witness to try to prove that he personally was harassed, yet Maya's public statements were entirely impersonal and not about any individual, but actually made in the context of a government consultation on gender recognition.

There is tons of precedent for continuous employment as a result of multiple fixed term contracts, that's very hard to argue against especially it was on a project she won the research funding for.

They have to find an alternative reason for her non renewal....

Well, if she was proven to have harassed someone then the status argument is irrelevant as the dismissal was fair whatever her status.

Quantum " the judge isn’t deciding that sex is/isn’t immutable ...He’s deciding whether affirming that sex is immutable qualifies as a philosophical belief and is therefore protected speech "

Nope, don't think you're missing anything. Right enough, the problem is SAYING something other than TWAW.

We could think it, but, not say it or act differently because we believed it.

It just makes me want to take my endometriosis to the court room and wave around my dodgy looking reproductive tract and ask "explain that then, mate?"

And, if it turned out she was not "employed" in the legal sense, then none of the belief stuff would have been heard at all, because there would not be going to be any employment tribunal after all
It's possible that the judge wanted the belief out in the open, this case could prove to be a landmark decision and he may have wanted this to happen.

The judge can simply say there was no discrimination from Maya. The fact that Quentin is upset by her statements is not proof of her bullying him. It's just proof that Quentin gets upset if people don't believe in gender identity and say it in public.