Another GC employment tribunal. Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #2

[nauticant]

Claiming constructive dismissal for GC beliefs.

ERCC CEO is a well known transwoman know for controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There was live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
R or ERCC: the Respondent, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
DH: David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent
KM: Katy McTernan, ERCC Senior management
MR: Mairi Rosko, ERCC Board Member
MS: Miren Sagues, ERCC Board Member
KH: Katie Horburgh, ERCC Board Member
AB: ERCC staff member (name redacted)
NCi: Nico Ciubotariu, COO of ERCC
MW: Mridul Wadhwa, CEO of ERCC
BP: Beira's Place

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis

Probably a good time for the judge to remind people that stating AB's real name would be contempt of court.

Again, just a reminder that in 2016 Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre published this account by a survivor:

CID Officers explained that there^ would need to be a forensic^ examination when the on-call forensic^ examiner (FE) arrived. I was not given^ any idea of how long that would be.I felt that I had to wait a long time for this.

I was asked to get on to the^ examination table. I was wearing a^ medical gown and no other clothing.^ I do not recall being asked if I would prefer a female FE. When the FEs^ arrived, they were two men. The nature of the testing was explained to me. I was never asked if I felt ok with a second person attending. I did not feel in the frame of mind to object.

I was asked to get on to the examination table. I was wearing a medical gown and no other clothing.
I was feeling very apprehensive and vulnerable. I felt like a piece of meat, not a live human being who has just been through extreme trauma. I did not want any man anywhere near me and certainly not touching me. Because I wanted all this to be over, I didn’t feel able to voice this. I just wanted to scream at them. Clinical information was given to me but I felt no compassion, care or consideration for my feelings.

www.ercc.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Edinburgh-Rape-Crisis-Centre-A-Womans-Story-230516.pdf

@GCITC dear me, there's a lot going on in the history of that Wikipedia page (which is currently using 'she/her').

Jesus, the contortions.

What if AB had been AMAB (urgh)? how would the reply go then?

From the articles and evidence shared, and MW's own stated beliefs and purpose in role, they would have been told they are NB and not male. The sin is mostly admitting that a NB person actually has a sex that remains static however they choose to identify.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that this service and its staff are largely very dedicated to serving the TQ+ political agenda and the interests of their staff, particularly the male ones. The women are just kind of resources for doing this with, along with the paperclips and furniture.

Another misgendering of AB by MR there.

the talk section of that is currently a complete bin-fire

how can it be so triggering to AB (and tolerated by the workplace) to be asked "how should i describe you to a rape survivor who has requested women-only support"

Surely to fuck the answer then should be "pls refer them to the female support staff, i'd prefer not to handle this case"

Back to the table.

NC: This includes gender. Do you take that to mean gi or sex

MR: I guess for me it's both.

NC: So both gi and sex are special category

MR looking at table.

MR: I would read it as same, but there's health records category later on which could come into play.

NC: Everyone email copied to knew AB was physically female, everyone who met AB would know they were female - you can't disclose what everyone knows. Would people know AB was female.

MR: Never met AB so don't know.

NC seems to be demonstrating here that gender identity ideology is so mixed up and contradictory, and especially that it isn't robust enough to survive an encounter with reality, that it's just not something that can be codified into a policy in a way that works in practice.

She has never met AB - what??

Maybe MR met the person before they transitioned to AB. So hasn't met "new person" AB.

MR: Never met AB so don't know.

But earlier MR couldn't understand how an AMAB NB could get a job at ERCC so she must've known AB was AFAB

Noting boils my piss more than a (willful?) misinterpretation and misuse of data protection legislation. Professional hazard.

Wouldn't an interview with AB have been fairly important in assessing just how "upset" she would have been about getting cc'd into an email?
It seems fairly fundamental to the disciplinary process to me (but I guess I'm not a fundraiser)

I bet Employment Tribunal judges really love them tho

AB, like other NB & trans people, had no idea this is where their complaint would end up. They become the subject under cross examination with personal information being put into the public domain.

The process is brutal not just on the claimant but also some of the respondents witnesses. Not for the first time I wonder about their mental health & wellbeing. Yes they have initiated this, but they have actually being failed by management & the organisation just as much as the claimant.

As Kemi said the EA2010 is a shield against discrimination and organisations adopting Stonewall law are doing employees like AB no favours by not taking a rational approach and kindly explaining it’s not discrimination.

I really can't see how anyone so easily upset about reading an email, as AB is, can be at all useful in a Rape Crisis Centre.

Bloody Norah.

that's a really good point. do you think ERCC are providing any kind of support to AB (I mean this sincerely, they are obviously mentally fragile and easily upset, this whole thing can't be doing them any good at all)

What other defence does DH have - ERCC have fucked up.

I'd think AB is probably getting a good deal more than raped women using the service are tbh.

NC: Disciplinary hearing docs - you have narrowed scope of your enquiry to RA's treatment of AB, causing distress to colleague/s. You are disregarding the wider investigation.

MR: Yes. We had moved on and set out how we wanted to go through the charges we wanted to investigate.

NC: RA's upset and distress c having been put to wider investigation, and colleagues questioned about her and her views, was v distressing.

MR: Yes, clear RA distressed. These processes are always distressing and I understand it's hard to be that person.

NC: But this isn't normal investigation of allegations. it's a wide-ranging enquiry c what can be deduced c someone's beliefs and what is seen as her underlying transphobia.

I felt that especially in Maya's case. For who's benefit is CGD spending the huge amount of money and expending the vast amount of time and effort from the organisation?

AB isn't a witness. And hasn't claimed discrimination.

This is where trans activism fails its own people. Advocating for a group of people on the basis of ideology rather than reality. AB has been pandered to and now that is coming back to bite them hard on the backside.