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

They obviously haven't read the Jo Phoenix judgement!

Contempt for terfs not merely acceptable within the org but pretty much compulsory! Witness doing terrible job of preventing NC from painting a damning picture of the culture of ERCC.

NC can you read the para LS was shocked about RAs views ( I think)

Discussing it on this board is completely different to watching it happen in real time.
We are used to evasion and obfusication, dodging the question, sticking of heads in the sand, la la la we can't hear you. But watching it live it comes across very badly. The witness' evasion and demeanour is the evidence. Dodging the question does not mean you gave a non incriminatory answer, it displays to the observer that the answer to the question cannot be given because it would reflect badly. It is so bad it cannot be said out loud. This comes across very strongly.

Second investigation is about a dislike of the claimants views?

Second investigation about the impact of things RA said to staff, not heretical.

V good point

I have two sheds and one garage and I'm still gonna have to stand on the back stoop to? Commune or something, I forget now why we were standing in sheds?

Btw thanks to all for the commentary. I'm sneaking looks through the day but I'm with troubled teens and showing my phone is a bad idea.

After each staff comment NC is asking that Nico didn't pull the staff member up on their discriminatory comments towards RA basically.

It's so frustrating listen to this useless witness being questioned about things other people have said who aren't there.

NC RA interview ed again in August. Nic o explained that meeting to bring up comments from staff about what Roz had said

Contempt of person, not views.

Which extends to service users with heretical views.

How can you provide a service to users when you hold them in contempt?

Colleague's raised concerns, they weren't looking for her to be punished, they were expressing their concerns

We recently bought a garage. It's got a very old landrover in it that DH has been meaning to 'do up' since 1997.

I could perch on the bonnet if someone gave me a leg up.

witness: I think they wanted it to be explored by the organisation

Reeducation wasn't working so they wanted punishment

God that last sentence was hard to understand!

NC speaks clearly from a desk to the witness's left.
The witness is a bit mumbly and never addresses her answers to NC but to the judge's bench ro her right. So every answer the witness gives she gives turned away from NC.

So all of us then? Remember that theres only 6 of us with (now)millions of sock accounts.

Witness: Defining transwoman as men could be considered transphobic

Multiple mentions in the OU judgement of witnesses being unwilling to own or be honest about their own opinions of gender critical views and people on the stand in contrast to their actions and words in evidence. In other words an admission of knowing how it would look. Reminds me of this.

I've lost where they are up to.

anything derogatory or hurtful is transphobic

NC going to orgs trans inclusion policy

Is there a definition of transphobia in that policy?

Is there a definition of transphobia in that policy?

Waits