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

To me it's that if they allow males to work there, which they can, and then hide the sex of support workers from service users, then there's a question about how they're able to fulfil their charitable purposes. For example, excluding a sub-group of service users for ideological reasons.

There's a case coming up down Brighton way - a woman suing for them not providing a single sex service - not even a single sex talking group.

That's IamSarah - who has a thread and posts on here

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4539958-big-update-on-rape-crisis-legal-challenge?page=1

Yes.

Yet, whenever we mention ideas and rhetoric like this, others assume we're being hyperbolic. Even when shown the evidence.

“humankind cannot bear too much reality”

It will have to be golden bridges. Societies cannot function with this level of dystopia embedded in our institutions and altering our social contracts.

Simple: anyone who has a 'woman' passport is a woman; therefore anyone who's a woman has a 'woman' passport.

Interesting in the OU judgement: distinction is made as to JP's views and the perception of her views, with these two things not being the same.

Basically it is identification of prejudice. And identification of an expectation of special care and behaviours towards gender related views and beliefs without reciprocation or equality.

Evidence again that this is not about threat to TQ+ services. The request was merely for an accessible female only group to be provided alongside the careful and multiple diverse choices available to others within the gender identity belief system. It would not have in any way affected those groups already running.

The refusal is due to direct prejudice regarding any other view or need incompatible with the gender identity belief system. 'Thou shalt not tolerate a heretic to have any rights or provision that disobeys the faith', in short.

That is what is being legally tested, again and again and again.

It goes further than that. It says the perception of these views is then twisted and projected back at her in an intimidating, hostile and humiliating way.

It specifically mentions the 368 individuals who put their names to an open letter as being abusive and harassing.

So not tolerating gender critical beliefs and accomodating them is deeply problematic if it manifests in an orchestrated campaign according to a judge.

At this point you have to start wondering about further legal cases along those line for various other organisations if there's a ruling that goes that far.

Point in question:

But if you truly believe TWAW and that “transphobia” is akin to racism, this makes sense, doesn’t it? As in, would a rape crisis centre agree to hold “whites only” sessions? I wouldn’t think so.

So I think this is internally coherent (inside this insane ideology)!

What I don’t understand is why AB was/is employed there at all. Haven’t they said that they only employ women? Of course they mean gender-women not actual female women, but even by their own criteria, how can they employ AB, who is in their eyes not a woman?

That would suggest that Sarah's case may get to directly test whether TWAW is compatible with respect for other people's rights. Which will be interesting to put it mildly.

NWORIADS in other words.

Yes - I was also interested in this. The (excellent, extensive, highly damning of OU) judgment says that they didn’t actually bother to check what JP herself was saying and doing, or what the GCRN was doing. They just made assumptions based on stereotypes about what a “gender critical” person would be like.

This is a good point. None of it makes any sense whatsoever.

I think AB was already in post when AB transitioned to adopted a new self-definition.

Yes absolutely! I was fascinated to hear NC say in the tribunal that it is not WORIADS. I fully agree with the PP (sorry, I’ve forgotten who it was) who said NC is getting to say all the things we’ve been blocked from saying, and saying them loudly in front of a judge!

Edited for typo

AB is non binary and isn't recognised in law as non binary.

Yet they employed her. Because in law she's a she and they see her as a she as a result. But no one wants to admit this.

It's the double standards and the misapplication of the law to suit the organisational culture (which can not be discussed).

Note here: if there is an organisational culture which can not be discussed, why is that? There is a culture of fear. If there is a culture of fear who is driving that fear? This doesn't happen spontaneously. It happens when there is a culture lead by individuals who impose a top down power structure where people can not challenge superiors or hold them to account. This tends to be driven by one dominant person or a very small group of people.

Cultures which are grassroots driven discuss and come to consensus at the bottom with the ethos going upwards to management who understand and respect it.

Why is a rape crisis centre not being grassroots led? Why is it being culturally led by a hierarchy from above?

I don't think this case will make a judgement on whether believing TWAW is WORIADS but it does feel like that needs to happen. For TWAW to hold from a TRA perspective, that has to mean for all intents and purposes, including prisons & rape crisis centres. If that gets tested in court, i don't know how it could be considered WORIADS given that it doesn't represent the law as it stands, then again IANAL so i don't really understand how they would test this. Would love a legal view on this (no Moira not you)

Yet they employed her. Because in law she's a she and they see her as a she as a result. But no one wants to admit this.

Exactly. Everyone knows she is female, including the staff and board at the ERCC who pretend not to notice people’s sex. If AB was triggered by a perfectly polite email asking valid questions about how to communicate with service users, you’d think she’d be massively triggered by the fact that her colleagues know she is female.

I don't think this case will make a judgement on whether believing TWAW is WORIADS but it does feel like that needs to happen.

No, I don’t think this case can do that - but I think Sarah’s case may be very important on this.

Great questions.

Assumption based in stereotypes=prejudice

Failure to check what was happening=total lack of due diligence

Not understanding the principles of research=Total failure in standards of academics

Failure to understand why sex matters (see the entire book of invisible women)=sexism

Failure to stop a hostile culture=enabling and legitimising harassment

I REALLY hope there's more than a few employers paying attention to that OU ruling...

The increasing legal nub of it would seem to be that it is perfectly acceptable to hold and express a sincerely held belief (such as gender identity beliefs) and to require equality of provisions and resources that work for them.

The question is whether it is acceptable and a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society that those not of your belief system should be in the same way entitled to equality of provisions and resources that also work for them.

It is coming down to the belief of thou shalt not tolerate a heretic or permit them to have resources that challenge gender identity faith by existence, even alongside resources that support and meet the needs of believers in gender identity.

That's the intolerance and wish to block/remove access and facilities that needs to be tested. That the OU should not tolerate a group to exist because of heresy. That Sarah should not be tolerated to have a female only group because its existence is heresy.

Its the heresy aspect that is the potential NWORIAD. And the viewing of those not of the gender identity belief as similar to racists or extremists who should not be tolerated or provided for. And the viewing of the existence of parallel, accessible resources for women who require single sex provision for their sex based needs and accessibility needs as a harmful and intolerable existential threat by itself to gender identity beliefs.

I think they actually drew the distinction of not employing men. So as AB identified as non binary, and MW identified as a woman the two don’t meet the criteria of being men and thus they can continue to say they don’t employ men. Which sane people might read as only employ women/females. But obviously that’s terribly transphobic and wrong.

Yes! I for one am feeling much more empowered at work since hearing the judgment yesterday.

As an aside, I thought it was hilarious in the JP tribunal how all the OU witnesses admitted they hadn’t actually listened to all/most/any of the Savage Minds podcast etc but they “knew enough” to know it was discriminatory transphobic harassment! I am very glad the judgment picked up on this.

Anyone reading who wants to watch as well:

Email: [email protected]

Ask for

Public access request RAdam v ERCC 4102236/2023

Mention you want video access, otherwise they'll email you to ask if you want video or attending in person access.

They'll send you an email with a link and a code and with 2 pdfs, one for watching on computer, one for tablets and phones.