Another GC employment tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #3

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gener Critical (GC) beliefs. The CEO of ERCC is a well known transwoman known for, among other things, controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There's live tweeting from https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets. There's an informative substack here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

This post explains how to get access to watch the hearing: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?page=24&reply=132419912

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
ERCC or R: Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the respondent
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

RA gave evidence over 15-18 January 2024.

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024 (on behalf of RA)
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katy McTernan (referred to both as KT and KM): 22 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis
Thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2

What is the difference between the different judgements

Has there been any witness trying to defend GI in court that hasn't sounded totally bat shit? In any of the cases so far?

So grateful for all these wonderful women going through the shit to prove that the gender believers are damaging to women’s interests. We will continue to fundraiser to support them for as long as needed but soon there MUST be a change of policy/ law which affects each and every workplace or organisation. .thank you for the reports from these cases which proves how utterly insane the believers are.

😂😂😂 I think there were a few mentions of this sort at the time on the thread.

Re Roz's case, I am confused as to why ERCC has put forward witnesses who were really only tangentially involved? Are is it so they can fall upon their swords if they lose?

Good question.

There is an argument here about flat earthers, freeman of the land and Scientologists...

The best way I can describe the witnesses in many of these ET's and legal cases is by the phrase 'they said what?!'

Cos the other people involved were not able to give a better defence and see this case as obviously beneath them.

Glass cliff also applies.

No because it's a faith based belief. There is no logical underpinning of faith only emotion. It requires rigidly sticking to dogma despite the evidence of your own eyes. During The Inquisition they would have fared much better if their beliefs were in alignment with the Inquisition, but the majority of us now live in a post the Earth is the centre of everything society.

I feel I may be in a minority here, but I did feel a teeny twinge of sympathy for the last witness today.

I can just imagine her sneaking back into work after failing to toe the ERCC line with sufficient vigour. Ouch.

Naomi Cunningham was spectacular at showing up the utter nonsense of the gender ideologues' stance. I was cheering her at times. Mr Hay - not so much.

Useful idiots thrown under a bus

I did not think the Jo Phoenix decision would come through so fast!

Bloody well done Jo. Hope you have broken Dry january. If I were near you I'd help you with that.

I have a qustion for anyone legally trained please.
How much/many/any constraints do all these tribunal results upholding gender critical beliefs place on an incoming Labour governmnet?
or put another way
Can Labour just ignore all these results as if they never happened? Or does what they do when in power have to remain consistent with these results?
or
Do these results constitute case law/legal precedent?

The Labour government could come in and change the law. They might do that with the GRA but I'm fairly confident they won't touch the Equality Act

This is actually quite heartbreaking. These women are not just batshit, but cruel and entitled.

One of those moments - we have a good idea but we can't say.

The whole point of our legal system is that the government is bound by the law that is passed by Parliament but can change things it finds inconvenient. So it won't be bound by the decisions but a sensible government would be unwise to ignore a whole string of decisions saying that whole sectors are ignoring the law that it passed.

Keir Starmer gave a speech today going after those he's labelled as "anti-woke", seeking to reassure the charitable sector and to get them on board with a Labour government. It came across as "ignore the nasty Tories, it's be business as usual with us".

I for one am assuming the panel are listening to this evidence about how ERCC behaved thinking "what the actual fuck where these people playing at?"

It is emerging and there are some great young barristers in it also.

I feel for her in the sense that she's clearly been stitched up by higher ups. But I also have a lack of sympathy because her mouth is opening and she's saying the words without a gun to her head.

She could have been a witness for Roz and backed her up at the time. She instead chooses to stick by this lunacy.

What happens if Labour changes the law?

It may all collapse yet.

(Or the law changes prove to be totally unworkable because of a lack of legal definition...)

IANAL but HR and so had to apply ET judgements.

When a law is first implemented as an employer you interpret it the best you can. It is ETs, EATs and higher courts including ( pre Brexit) EU courts that actually interpret if the laws have been applied correctly. EATs and above are usually referred to as case law.

ETs don’t set a precedence but if sensible many employers will follow them.

Maya’s EAT sets the precedence and to overturn it another case would have to go through ET, EAT and then to Court of Appeal.

A government can, and do, change the law based on ETs, EATs etc. this can either be to incorporate a judgement or to rectify a law that doesn’t work as intended.

I am sure someone far better qualified than me can explain this.

Not a lawyer but studied law at degree. The tribunal has determined that the EQA affords protection to people holding a GC belief.

To undo that parliament would have to change the EQA to specifically remove protection for GC beliefs.

Which. Is more than unlikely

Today was the strongest grounds yet spoken in court that pave the way towards this belief system being incompatible with providing an impartial, public, tax paid service. This isn't a faith that permits more than one master, you cannot serve it and still provide an impartial, unprejudiced, accessible service to others.

NWORIADS has been mentioned, and that is going to get built on in subsequent cases if not this one.

Whoever's in power when this finally goes far enough will have to require that tolerance and accessibility is built in to tax payer funded services or that alternative facilities and services are provided alongside. At that point whoever was in power would have to either declare themselves of of the one true faith against the heretics (and good luck with that, it's most of the voters), or ensure this impartiality and equality. (Which is heresy against the faith.)

We are also, every day, just hours from the next pink leggings event that make the general public and press ever more aware, and push for action. Historically, Labour have been worse about knee jerk gesture political action in response to PR issues than the Tories. (Who do it too.)