Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 8

[ickky]

Started on 2nd October at Watford Employment Tribunal (Radius House, 51 Clarendon Rd, Watford WD17 1HP 01923 281750)

You may attend in person or remote viewing has been quite limited but you can request log in details from

Email [email protected]

Header should read

URGENT CURRENT CASE - Public Access Request - J Phoenix - The Open University - 3322700/2021

Ask for access link and pin and please give your name and address in the email as they check when you connect to the tribunal.

The clerk will ask you (in a private remote room) to put your camera on to verify, this involves looking at you, but no ID is needed. You may turn off your camera after this pointless and unnecessary process.

Abbreviations

JP - Jo Phoenix, Claimant (C)
OU - The Open University, Respondent (R)
J - Regional Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or panel member
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for C
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, Counsel for R
OU Departments & Networks:
HWSRA - Health & Wellbeing Strategic Research Area
FASS - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
SPC - Dept of Social Policy & Criminology
KMi - Knowledge Media Institute
GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network

OU witnesses

PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology, Deputy Head SPC 2021-22
IF - Prof Ian Fribbance Dean of FASS
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
KS - Kevin Shakesheff. PVC for Research and Innovation
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21😇
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language - This witness did not give evidence.

Witness for JP:

SE - Professor Sarah Earle, Head of the HWSRA

Tribunal Tweets - https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets

TT coverage so far - https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Prof Jo Phoenix Witness Statement (scroll to bottom of page and download)

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/phoenix-v-open-university?sd=pf

Thread 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4905118-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-2nd-october-whispers-ben-cooper?page=1

Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4913946-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

Thread 3
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4917480-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-3

Thread 4
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4918479-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-4

Thread 5
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4919223-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-5

Thread 6
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4921308-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-6

Thread 7
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4922765-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-7

It's not just that they misled, the ET found that a number of staff breached the OUs own policies on bullying, harassment etc etc.

Surely the OU have to discipline, otherwise what is the point of having a policy in the first place (a lack of action would also show the OU is not a good place to work or study for very many women)

As someone who has studied with the OU, I'm gutted that an organisation set up to make education more accessible has come to this.

Brilliant. Well done Jo and the team for being so strong. Off to read the judgement.

OU Statement.

Our priority has been to protect freedom of speech while respecting legal rights and protections. We are disappointed by the judgement and will need time to consider it in detail, including our right to appeal.

https://ounews.co/uncategorized/statement-on-employment-tribunal-ruling/

I wonder which legal adviser they've consulted.

The OU statement is appalling - though hardly surprising! My initial reaction is to hope they do appeal - they’ve clearly learnt nothing!

Ah, the fuckers. You'd think they'd at least be a tiny bit more gracious with a bit more dignity than to immediately mention an appeal (even if they are taking legal advice on it behind the scenes, wasting more money no doubt - glad I'm not paying fees there). Good luck with that with all the recent court cases, the wind is blowing in the direction of reality.

Prof P must be so glad to no longer work there.

And yes, I notice no mention of any disciplinary action against those staff who discriminated and harassed and broke the OU's own policies.

It's rather ironic that on the same page as this weasel worded 'statement' when they've been found to have discriminated against a woman for believing in biological reality there's also a headline 'OU research reveals shocking level of online violence experienced by women and girls across the UK'

Hmmm, yes OU - physician heal thyself? (I am sure the people actually doing this research were not involved in this particular shit show but still.... the juxtaposition is stark)

Still working my way through the judgement. It's a goldmine of "insincere" , ""harm" means "offence"", "inconsistent" ...

I agree with the OU that time to consider it in detail is needed...

My actual garden's overdue hard landscaping will have to wait another year if they do. I can't afford to have the rotten railway sleepers replaced and donate to multiple legal cases.

Describing this judgement as excoriating does not do it justice. I can see why it has taken longer than expected. They have gone through the witness statements and examinations line by line and identified every lie, distortion, misrepresentation evasion and attempt at dissembling.

As I understand it the OU can only appeal on limited grounds -

You can appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) if you think a legal mistake was made in an employment tribunal case.
For example, you could appeal if it:

• got the law wrong
• did not apply the correct law
• did not follow the correct procedures and this affected the decision
• had no evidence to support its decision
• was unfairly biased towards the other party

I honestly think they will struggle to find grounds as the judgement appears to be very thorough.

This bit doesn't beat around the bush!



Daily Mail coverage: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12993879/former-open-university-professor-racist-uncle-wins-harassment-case.html

Try again

I've read most of the judgment and it's a page-turner!

There is so much detail in the reasoning and the logic is most beautiful to behold.

I particularly enjoyed the finding that it was 'patronising' of OU LGBT+ groups to expect to hold a veto over the formation of the GCRN. It describes so effectively the authoritarianism that has taken hold under the hands-off, look-away-now, ostrich-style management by Senate of OU structures and procedures.

Where the lack of credibility lies between written statements and how the reasoning of so many shifted under cross-examination (plus the consistent evasion on key points) it's clear, I think, that any appeal would be on a hugely sticky wicket. They might do it punitively, just because they can, and to extend the suffering of Jo Pheonix, but I would hope that her legal team could argue that any proposed grounds for appeal would amount to further and continuing harassment.

The basis of the judgment, in my opinion, is the presumption of immanence regarding transphobia. There is no transphobia in evidence but the assumption of it is in every sentence of the Respondent's defense and witness testimony. If it is assumed, then it can be equated with other isms, and then equivalence can be made/ justified around what is and isn't acceptable within the bounds of academic freedom.

The judgment declares for all to see that being GC is NOT transphobic. If being GC is not transphobic then there is no possible argument in defense of this behaviour.

That's HUGELY important as most of the problem within the current climate is that assumption.

An appeal may seek to overturn that judgment but with the current witness and testimony (including acknowledgment from the OU's legal support that the advice they offered was (I paraphrase) one-sided and discriminatory in nature) I find it hard to imagine how anything they have could support such an appeal.

They would have to prove that being GC is transphobic and I don't see how they can do that here, with this evidence.

I have no legal knowledge whatsoever but I do love a logical argument and this is awash with them. An appeal, I think, would have to present a whole new set of witness testimony and expertise that establishes transphobia to be immanent and I don't think that's allowed (new evidence I mean). They have to work with what is already submitted and that is easily proved to be a shambles and cluster-fuck.

Anyhoo, that's my thoughts for the moment.

Has the angry crying started online yet? I’d like to think this judgement would give certain GI exponents pause - as it is so detailed and encompassing - but I won’t hold my breath!

They won't read it. They'll wait for an org or prominent Twitter TRA like FoxyKimono to give their bad faith take on it then they'll repeat that ad nauseam for years.

I saw some bloke on X today berating Maya about how the court ruled her belief as not WORIAD. He got his arse handed to him of course but clearly he's not bothered to keep up at all or only gets his information from very limited sources. So smug though in the certainty he knew what he was talking about.

I'm sure UCU will be lining up to support Downes and Drake 🙄

@wacademia - I’ll dig alongside you (but I’m at a loss to see any realistic grounds for appeal as agree with @Largofesse on the beauty of the judgement!)

Any lawyers around to cast a view on a possibility of an appeal? And one that isn’t bordering on vexatious?

Would it be wrong of me to say Bundles 3 times while looking in a mirror?

I would love to hear his take on this- no doubt this would be a secret victory for OU due to their long term cunning master plan which we mere women wouldn’t understand.

Wow. They are found guilty of constructive dismissal, their shiny witnesses are found to have lied at the tribunal and to have breached the OU's policies and that is their response.

But I am not surprised. It is obvious from the proceedings that

• The institution is captured by gender ideology
• They see nothing wrong in their actions because "the cause" justifies breaking their own policies. In their eyes the cause justifies anything
• Their actions against Jo were orchestrated
• Their responses and statements during the tribunal were coordinated, too. They must have had some advice as they all denied writing the letter and apparently nobody knew who'd written it
• From this sample of academic staff I am deeply unimpressed with the OU.

They don't seem to have the intellectual or moral tools to reflect upon this judgement. So double down it is.

I would hope when the dust settles and those that "blindly" signed the letter take a good look at who they chose to put their names with. Proven liars and bullies.

BTW @sweetsardineface ( love the username) my brain doesn't work very well these days and I read your post as Drowning Drakes which is kind of a metaphor for the OU right now.

The old phrase "When in a hole, stop digging" comes to mind. Why would they want to further embarrass themselves by drawing attention to the fact that a judge has written a lengthy judgement effectively condemning their staff as both incompetent and malicious?

Definitely dead ducks!