Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 4

[Whatamesssss]

Thread one, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

Thread two, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4505825-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-2?pg=1

Thread three, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4507443-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-3

Abbreviations:
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for
MF = Maya Forstater - Claimant
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents
EJ = Employment judge, leading the panel
Panel = any one of the 3 members

CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1

CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2

LE = Luke Easley, Vice president for HR and operations at CGD, first witness for CGD
AG = Amanda Glassman, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary of CGD and a Trustee of CGD(Europe), second witness for CGD
MP = Mark Plant, Chief Operating Officer of CGD Europe, third witness for CGD
MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE – Respondent 3, fourth witness for CGD

EM = Ellen MacKenzie, an off-stage character at CGD, involved in much that went on.

Maya's website has lots of relevant information and is collating the live tweets.
www.hiyamaya.net

twitter.com/tribunaltweets is the account to look at for the live tweets. Plus some live posting and discussion on these threads.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

They will send you pin number and a link to log in to the tribunal.

I think it's fairly common behaviour to consider all your options, especially if you think you've been badly treated, before you decide on whether to turn down a contract.

It isn't just about keeping a job is it either? If there is precedent that one loses employment opportunity unless one stays silent on matters like this, that are impactful and important to debate in society, then we do have de facto thought/speech control. People need to earn a living. So maybe it isn't just this job - it is any job. In order to eat - toe the line.

@JoodyBlue

It isn't just about keeping a job is it either? If there is precedent that one loses employment opportunity unless one stays silent on matters like this, that are impactful and important to debate in society, then we do have de facto thought/speech control. People need to earn a living. So maybe it isn't just this job - it is any job. In order to eat - toe the line.

Yes it is very important in a wider sense. It will have a chilling effect on free speech.

'If there is precedent that one loses employment opportunity unless one stays silent on matters like this, that are impactful and important to debate in society, then we do have de facto thought/speech control. People need to earn a living. So maybe it isn't just this job - it is any job. In order to eat - toe the line.'

Yes, this isn't just about beliefs. Not about icing cakes etc. where matters of law are settled. This is about the right to political engagement. Now, I'm not saying this about the right to engage in that at work, but it is clear that even where she was content not to talk about this at work, they weren't prepared to employ her - or be associated with her - because of her engagement in an active matter of law and policy.

How are we supposed to be engaged citizens if our bosses can limit our rights to say, 'No, we don't want this new law to be passed?'

There's the argument again: if MF is free to manifest her beliefs, CGD is free to dissociate themselves from her because of reputational risk.

Nauticant:

Which is no different from saying I can't be publicly politically active at all, in case my boss doesn't like it.

Yes, it's the lack of unbiased engagement that (I think and hope) might sink them. They didn't ask her about her beliefs. They didn't tell her where they thought the line was. They colluded behind her back. They allowed other employees to 'organise opposition'. They deceived her about the QI report.

And in spite of this, they consistently accuse her of being disruptive.

It looks like it so I feel I must be missing some legal nuance.

it IS chilling....

I'm interested in the "she was never an employee or an applicant" argument.

I don't think the comparison of the volunteer agreement is a good one, because Maya was clearly being paid for the work she did, even if not as a salaried employee. However, I know nothing about protections for contractors.

Presumably, if I put a piece of work out to tender and rejected a contractor because I disagreed with one of their protected beliefs (and left a paper trail about this) that would be discriminatory? But in that case, there's a clear call for applicants to complete a specific piece of work, which was then not given to one contractor for a bogus/illegal reason. But in Maya's case, it's less clear cut. She wasn't applying to do a special piece of work defined by CGD. There was a work programme defined in the Gates grant application with specific deliverables and she was named as a prospective employee. But is that enough? Or is this one of those times when a big organisation encourages a contractor to go the extra mile cos they care about the end goal and then leaves them high and dry with no protections at all?

As I understand it, that's the position that employees of the MoD live under. They can't be members of a political organisation/ party and AFAIK they are not expected to voice political opinions.

@tabbycatstripy

Nauticant:

Which is no different from saying I can't be publicly politically active at all, in case my boss doesn't like it.

To be honest - I am hearing many of my friends saying this by private message already.

Except for one thing. CGD's case is that the years' long mess that has occupied CGD demonstrates that in MF's case her particular manifestations were so disruptive that risk was foreseeable.

There are plenty of employers who have rules about not engaging politically. What is different here, I think, is that they are trying to apply it to only one viewpoint. If they had a policy of 'no political engagement' that would be acceptable. Of course CGD didn't have any policy at all at the time Accor to their evidence.

@Pluvia

As I understand it, that's the position that employees of the MoD live under. They can't be members of a political organisation/ party and AFAIK they are not expected to voice political opinions.

That presumably would be in their contract of work and clearly defined line that should not be crossed.

I think ODs argument (although clever) is inconsistent. The relationship between MF has to be so close that MF views are a reputational risk but (on the other hand) not so close that it is an employment relationship. - Thats going to be a hard one to show

ADJOURNED

Except for one thing. CGD's case is that the years' long mess that has occupied CGD demonstrates that in MF's case her particular manifestations were so disruptive that risk was foreseeable.

"She was so scary I blew my own foot off in panic! Just goes to show how dangerous she was!"

@nauticant

There's the argument again: if MF is free to manifest her beliefs, CGD is free to dissociate themselves from her because of reputational risk.

It's hardly a level playing field is it though? Employers have far more power than one individual employee.

I do think if employers can choose not to employ people - in law - based on a belief they hold outside of work that is very disturbing precedent. It would mean you could refuse to employ anyone who's part of a particular religion.

@Sillydoggy

There are plenty of employers who have rules about not engaging politically. What is different here, I think, is that they are trying to apply it to only one viewpoint. If they had a policy of 'no political engagement' that would be acceptable. Of course CGD didn't have any policy at all at the time Accor to their evidence.

Yes, and the policy is explicitly made known to the employees.

Thanks @tabbycatstripy

Good to see the BC steered that to him presenting in one go tomorrow.

@Sillydoggy

There are plenty of employers who have rules about not engaging politically. What is different here, I think, is that they are trying to apply it to only one viewpoint. If they had a policy of 'no political engagement' that would be acceptable. Of course CGD didn't have any policy at all at the time Accor to their evidence.

Plenty on employer now "encouraging" the use of pronouns on email signatures. So there IS "encouragement" to political engagement, with veiled threat if one refuses.

So as OD has just asked, OD may reply to BC submission tomorrow. Can we assume that BC may reply to hers in his submission tomorrow? Seems so. Asked earlier by other MNer.

'The relationship between MF has to be so close that MF views are a reputational risk but (on the other hand) not so close that it is an employment relationship. - Thats going to be a hard one to show.'

To me I think the whole thing is hard to show. There's no evidence anyone withdrew, or threatened to withdraw, funding, in light of Maya's statements, and actually they had to go on a surreptitious campaign to try to get funders to withhold money. I don't think - for the UK office anyway, and that's relevant, given CGD insists they were separate organisations - it would have made a difference.