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

I'm trying to find the judgment but can't. Please can someone link it for me :)

Trying to remember from previous cases: to appeal means something has been identified that was wrong with the legal process doesn't it? It can't just be a re review of the evidence to see if someone comes up with a more preferable result.

But again, yes please to appeal, the evidence and the thorough review of it, and the publicity, is all very helpful.

Yes, and you DIDN'T DO THAT DID YOU.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65ae82d58bbe95000e5eb1f7/Ms_J_Pheonix_v_The_Open_University_3322700.2021___other_FMH_Reserved_Judgment.pdf

The level of detail effectively dissecting the credibility and lawfulness of each witness is going to make future cases interesting.

It shows putting up 18 witnesses in an attempt to discourage a claim due to costs can spectacularly backfire.

The OU have now got an issue with the fact so many of their staff should have been disciplined for bullying and harassment and they didn’t do this.

Thank you :)

Well done Jo, this is so brilliant. What courage you have displayed, thank you.

It shows putting up 18 witnesses in an attempt to discourage a claim due to costs can spectacularly backfire

Thats a very good point - reading the judgement it all worked in Jo’s favour. The weight of evidence from all those non-credible witnesses helped build the case and evidently (!) gave EJ Young plenty to write about.

i think many people had reservations about the judge as she is relatively new in position (was she captured by judge training, the asking of pronouns at the start) but i think reading the judgement it’s clear that she is very thorough and demonstrates an ability to think clearly and write well to lead the reader through the logic. Plus she must have a capacity for detail and information approaching the level of Ben Cooper to be able to produce that quality document so quickly (in relative terms). Still no idea of her personal views, which is right and proper.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving I agree EJ Young was extremely professional and, as I have already posted, it will be very difficult to find grounds to appeal.

The number of OU witnesses also made it clear that this wasn't just a conflict between two or three individuals but a hostile environment for the claimant.

This is an Employment Tribuneral case and as such isn't binding. If they appeal it to the High Court (and lose) won't it become binding?
From the eviseration they just received, are they that stupid?

RethinkingLife · Yesterday 22:08

OU Statement.

There's more, too:

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

" Professor Tim Blackman, Vice-Chancellor of the OU, said: 'We are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of everyone involved in the case and acknowledge the significant impact it has had on the claimant, the witnesses and many other colleagues. Our priority has been to protect freedom of speech while respecting legal rights and protections.'"

The case shows that the exact opposite of the final sentence was the case. They sought to shut Jo's freedom of expression down and illegally harassed and bullied her, making no attempts to carry out their legal duty to assist her over the death threats she received.

How he can say that with a straight face beggars belief.

Wasn't the OU set up by Harold Wilson? I think he said it was his proudest achievement.

Perhaps, they could set up a turbine on his grave, it'd probably produce enough electricity to keep the lights on across the Scilly Isles, possibly into Cornwall.

Classy comment from excellent Peter Daly reminding people of the women at the heart of all this.

I hope Jo is feeling jubilant and vindicated this morning, but that is a tough tough read.

She was bullied, harassed, victimised and pilloried by the very people who just a few years earlier she would have assumed where her natural allies.

Having all her feelings validated must be a huge relief, but it doesn't take away the awfulness of the experience. She was the victim of a true witch hunt which was clearly sanctioned and enabled by her employer. They hounded her even after she left. Even to the toughest of birds, that will do lasting damage. How do you ever trust anyone or anything again if you can be treated this appallingly for simply believing sex is real and it matters?

Probably already been said- but Jo is on Womans Hour this morning.

Go Jo!

I would value an appeal from the perspective of further codifying into law the right to hold and express GC beliefs (as I can't imagine any other outcome), but I want Jo's ordeal to have ended so on balance, I hope the OU doesn't go down that road. I think that pathetic excuse for a statement is partly to cast the shadow that "the process is the punishment" element hasn't gone away yet for Jo, and also to send a message to the TRAs that they don't accept they're wrong, so please don't turn on them. They are utterly captured and my hopes of one day getting the degree I couldn't study for on leaving school, by means of the OU, have been sadly but firmly shelved. I will not give them a penny while they are so firmly and despicably anti-woman.

I didn't have an opportunity yesterday to say well done and thank you to Jo. I hope last night's sleep was the long, deep sleep of the just.

Fabulous news for Jo but what an ordeal she has gone through.

I suppose that OU statement is mostly boilerplate. Of course we never know but once they've really read through the judgment in full all its glory with their legal advisors I wouldn't expect them to take it further.

I have just spent five glorious hours reading the judgement in its entirety. Just wow.

I am unsuprised by the OU’s statement, it shouts of having the last word and trying to save face but also continuing to bow to the cult but they will be unlikely to take it to appeal.

I would like to see some serious internal consequences for Downes, Keogh, Drake, Westmorland and Snarey. Horrendous behaviour.

Yes, I agree that they should face serious sanctions. They're completely unfit to be in academia.

So pleased for Jo. Also thank you Ben!

I am unsuprised by the OU’s statement, it shouts of having the last word and trying to save face but also continuing to bow to the cult but they will be unlikely to take it to appeal.

this is my thinking too. They’re appeasing current staff and students. I can’t see what grounds they would have for an appeal but IANAL so who knows.

i would hope that maybe there is still some grown ups somewhere in the organisation that will read the judgement thoroughly and realise that the various groups of protected characteristics defined in the EA are not ranked.

JP also pays due tribute to Annie Powell of Leigh Day.

(I'm mindful of this via the excellent Peter Daly who was gracious about a compliment intended for him.)

You are correct that OU cannot appeal simply because they disagree with the decision. To borrow a phrase that is sometimes used by appeal judges, the original hearing is the first and last day of the show. OU can only appeal successfully if they can show that the tribunal has made an error in law, or there was a serious procedural error (e.g. the tribunal considered evidence that should have been excluded or did not consider evidence that should have been included) or that the decision was clearly contrary to the evidence.