Court cases/Judicial Reviews/ET/ETAs

[ArabellaScott]

A thread of court cases involving people with 'gender critical' beliefs. So they are all in one place. I'll try and add links to court judgements where I can find them.

I'll add cases as I have time but please feel free to add others and/or remind me of any I've missed!

1. Maria McLachlan, Tara Wolf. Assault by beating/battery.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/04/27/trans-identified-male-tara-wolf-charged-assault-hyde-park-attack/

'Tara Wolf (also known as Tara Flik Wood), a trans-identified male, stood trial for striking 60-year-old Maria MacLachlan three times in Hyde Park on September 13th 2017, where women had gathered to attend a meeting called “We Need to Talk About Gender” at a yet-to-be-disclosed location. Wolf was found guilty of “assault by beating,” more commonly known as “battery.”'

@Totallywoah I understand Sarah's case has had a short initial hearing, and on another website she says they are waiting for a trial date, could be anytime from Nov 2024.

Her case against the survivor's network is important as so many female victims of male abuse are effectively excluded from support by local authorities and PCCs (by only commissionning 'gender based' mixed sex service provision, instead of female only).

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/laura-favaro-v-city-university

Laura Favaro v City Uni - case settled

I'm very pleased for Laura, I remember her posting here about the case. That's a few pounds well spent for me.

As much as I get intellectual enjoyment from hearing the arguments put forth by both sides and the questioning of witnesses (because nowhere else in our society is this debate regularly being held at a high level of logic. In the media it’s all largely described in terms of feelings and emotion and logic gets less of a look in), I am glad for the claimants not having to be put through the trial and the wait afterward for the judgement. Although, in both this and Lizzy Pitt’s case I think it’s shabby of the respondents to wait until the actual day of or near to the day of the hearing to back down.

I do also value the chance of setting precedents via Tribunals and worry if this new development of forcing GC employees to crowdfund but denying them their day in court is a frustrating tactic designed to undermine people fighting for their rights and for the rights of others.

James Esses v Metanoia Institute

Settlement, with an apology to Esses.

https://x.com/jamesesses/status/1823642057669259573?s=61&t=NHDSDk1MaF98_GOtcuLi0Q

https://www.metanoia.ac.uk/about/litigation-with-james-esses/

'Litigation with James Esses

We are pleased to announce that we have reached settlement in the Employment Tribunal claim brought by James Esses against us.
Metanoia recognises that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. These are the beliefs that sex is binary, immutable and biological and is fundamentally important. Whilst Metanoia specialises in professional training for those working in adult and not child psychotherapy it accepts as a matter of general principle the validity of the professional belief that children with gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy, rather than being affirmed towards medical intervention. Discrimination against students because of these beliefs is unlawful.
Metanoia also acknowledges the changing policy landscape in this field, including the significant UKCP withdrawal from the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, on child safeguarding grounds, as well as the outcome of the Cass Review. We accept that Mr Esses’ advocacy on this subject-matter was motivated by a desire to protect children.
We also recognise the importance of freedom of speech within educational institutions and the steps taken by the government in this regard, including the recent introduction of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
We accept that in our treatment of Mr Esses we were in breach of our own policies, when we summarily, and without due process, expelled him from his Masters’ course in Integrative Psychotherapy. Mr Esses was not afforded a hearing or an internal appeal.
We also apologise for publicising Mr Esses’ expulsion on social media and in other communications. We accept that the Institute’s public comment on social media contributed to Mr Esses receiving online abuse from third parties, which we condemn.
As a consequence of his expulsion, Mr Esses was barred from the opportunity of completing the additional two years of his studies and receiving his qualification with the Institute. Mr Esses passed every assessment undertaken which had been marked, had received positive feedback from his clinical placements and, at the time of his expulsion, had been signed off to set up in private practice by his supervisor, clinical placement and personal tutor. We apologise to him for the impact of his expulsion, both professional and personal.
Notwithstanding the fact that high-quality therapy is rooted in empathy, active listening and unconditional positive regard, we did not fulfil these values in our treatment of Mr Esses. For this we apologise fully.
We will seek to learn the lessons from this ordeal to ensure that this never happens to another student within our Institute and have already taken significant steps so as to improve quality in decision-making. We acknowledge the hurt that it has caused to Mr Esses and wish him well for the future.'

That's great, but just an apology? No financial, or other, restitution?

Today Esses announced he had reached a settlement with UKCP and, although he was not able to reveal the terms of the settlement, he was extremely happy with them.

https://can-sg.org/2023/12/11/james-esses-reaches-settlement-with-uk-council-for-psychotherapy/

Ah, ta. This one's been going on forever, hasn't it? But as it seems we've all learnt by now, the process is the punishment.

I missed adding Natalie Bird's case:

Natalie Bird v Liberal Democrat Party

Lib dems admit discrimination.

'<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/JxUqL/www.telegraph.co.uk/liberal-democrats/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Liberal Democrats have admitted discriminating against a mother who was barred from standing as an MP after wearing a T-shirt reading: “Woman: Adult, Human, Female.”
Natalie Bird, 43, says she was suspended from the party after being “harrassed” and “smeared” by activists because she fought for women’s rights and expressed her opinion that it is <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/JxUqL/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/03/trans-ideology-has-changed-britain-beyond-recognition/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">not possible for a person to change sex.
After a three-and-a-half-year legal battle, the party admitted Ms Bird’s claims at the 11th hour before the trial was due to begin next month.
Ms Bird said that her treatment and that of other gender-critical women shows that <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/JxUqL/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/23/ed-davey-woman-can-have-penis-liberal-democrat-leader-lbc/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the Lib Dems have a “women problem” and have questions to answer about why they took so long to admit discriminating against her.

A costs hearing at which she is expected to be awarded thousands in damages is due to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice next month.
'

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/natalie-bird-v-liberal-democrat-party

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/27/lib-dems-admit-discriminating-against-gender-critical-candi/

https://archive.is/JxUqL

A round up of relevant cases in the past six months, from the inestimable Tribunal Tweets:

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/sentinel-volume-7

I'm glad to read that Kevin Lister has seen sense and engaged a lawyer, I just hope he has a good one.

Jon Pike v OU

Settlement reached. Pike was represented by his union UCU. OU acknowledges it fell.short and reiterates the apology made to Jo Phoenix.

Pike is to help OU address issues, although not much info on what that involves.

https://x.com/runthinkwrite/status/1828193644832055744

I will read the thread properly in a mo.

Wanted to placehold a note that Professor Dame Nicola Dandrige was appointed to lead an independent review at The Open University following the ruling of the Employment Tribunal in the case brought by Professor Jo Phoenix earlier this year. Appointed in May, expected to take 4 months to complete.

''Formerly Chief Executive of the Office for Students, Universities UK and the Equality Challenge Unit, Professor Dame Dandridge’s independent review will be tasked with:

• Safeguarding academic freedom and freedom of speech, and how these rights intersect with equality and employment rights and legislation.
• Ensuring difficult and contested matters can be debated in line with the OU’s values.
• How the University manages disagreements where colleagues hold profoundly different and conflicting views.
• Defining, communicating and upholding standards of behaviour expected of and by OU staff through effective policies and practice.

Plans for an independent review were announced previously by Professor Tim Blackman, Vice-Chancellor of The Open University, following the employment tribunal ruling. The University unreservedly apologised to Professor Phoenix following the judgment.''

(from an OU page)

So we can be on the lookout for an update on this in September.

Shahrar Ali v The Green Party of England and Wales

Ali awarded £90k costs

electshahrar.co.uk/ali-wins-cost-hearing-vs-greenparty

Good for Ali, but it's yet another case where the offender has tried to win, by outspending the plaintiff. I wish it were punishable by making such offenders pay all costs, as well as compensation.

Assuming the information in the link is correct, if Shahrar Ali got 60% costs in an ET case that's a fantastically good result.

This one is excellent!

https://www.thetimes.com/article/76eebcbf-c161-4505-b531-685420b099e7?shareToken=841fc1c1611c2e2f81bdd795509dc136

Agree - this is a major injustice within the 'justice' system. We're seeing the cases where the individual has won due to crowdfunding and publicity but I bet most of the time the massive organisation does, the cases that don't get the publicity.

Any analysis of that would be really interesting, actually. % of cases won where an individual goes up against a large institution.

Thank you!

Lizzie Pitt v Cambridgeshire County Council

'Local authority bosses must pay a lesbian social worker more than £63,000 after she was disciplined for having “nasty opinions” about a colleague’s “gender-fluid” dog.

Elizabeth Pitt was reported to managers at Cambridgeshire county council for making allegedly transphobic remarks during a video meeting with the council’s “LGBTQIA+ group” last year.

An employment tribunal heard that Pitt made the comments after a colleague said he identified his dachshund dog as “gender-fluid” and that he had put a dress on the pet to prompt debate. Pitt and another lesbian colleague were reported for commenting on the revelation in a “really aggressive tone”, in which they voiced views that were deemed to be “non-inclusive and transphobic”.

Council bosses banned Pitt from contacting members of the group or attending their meetings. In response, the social worker sued the local authority for discrimination and harassment over her so-called gender critical views.
The tribunal backed Pitt’s claim and awarded the social worker more than £55,000 in damages and £8,000 costs. The judge also recommended that the council change its staff training to include a section on “freedom of belief and speech in the workplace”.

...

In his ruling, the judge, Paul Michell, said the tribunal agreed with Pitt’s lawyer that the evidence “unambiguously” showed that “at least part of the reason” for the council’s conduct towards her was her “gender-critical beliefs”. Pitt was awarded nearly £30,000 in loss of earnings and £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, with interest added.

Michell recommended that council bosses include a section on freedom of belief and speech in the workplace in its mandatory training for staff within the next six months.'

I'm puzzled.

If (as was reported in always excellent The Critic) Cambridgeshire County Council pulled out at the last minute (just before before the ET started) and agreed to damages etc, why has the ET now ruled that Liz Pitt should get damages and costs awarded?

I thought a settlement in advance of a hearing starting halts proceedings, yet The Times article I posted is reporting there was a ruling by the Judge and an ET sanctioned award?

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-curious-incident-of-the-dog-and-the-tribunal/

I guess it was a hearing to establish what damages and costs were to be awarded?

They turned up and said they weren't contesting it, I think. Like the Natalie Bird v Lib Dems hearing.

Well, I'm really glad to hear that she's won her case and in style.

One thing which intrigues me is that, after these ridiculous cases, where women are harassed and bullied out of their jobs, that the risible idiots who did the bullying and whining never seem to face sanction. Nor, for that matter, do the bosses, who supported them, or at least winked at it.

Surely bringing a spurious complaint, resulting in an expensive, impossible to win suit at law should result in a disciplinary procedure, for wasting public money, if nothing else?

Jo Phoenix has published a report on 'gc' tribunals which she says have an 80% success rate

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/dont-get-caught-out

80% is a phenomenal rate of success!