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

On to the fact that AB feels let down as the issue still not resolved I think

Missed the response

oooh, this is a very good point.

Some (let's call them the people who identify as special) are allowed to have a preference not to work with someone but others (lets call them the validation tools) don't get that choice.

Hi - I'm pretty sure that KM said 'woman for the job' or 'she was best person for the job'. I was the tweet this am. I have managed to dodge any she/her pronouns or similar such as referring to MW as the common word for 'adult human female'. By simply using MW or person.

It was my line in the sand.

NC from MW an email to AB still carrying out conversation with me it was a difficult one to have.

My god!!

NC MW feeling guilty

Witness I can't comment on MW feelings

Witness them corrects nc saying he to she

MISGENDERING

<DRINK>

Wow witness VERY quick to correct NC calling MW he!!

It's such a knee-jerk reaction.

Email exchange between MW and ab and ab is distressed by how MW was I think

Witness just named AB

NC AB expressing considerable distress c conversation with MW

KM y

NB MW response - 'Deeply sorry I made you think that way. You are not the problem or a threat. Will make sure it doesn't happen again.

KM MW is feeling responsibility for impact of conversation on [misnamed] AB

Witness currently struggling over answering NC

Lots of I don't agree with that statements

Quick to insist MW is a she not he, but straight into naming AB. I wonder if AB will put in a claim for harassment after their identity being shared by the ERCC witnesses

I think this means that if a client asked for an AFAB person, they would be assigned one, without outing other staff members. Is that right? I find it tricky to parse.

NC - at the new initial meeting, what would you do if SU asked for a biologically female SW

KM - we would tell them we couldn't give them information about bio sex but would honour their request

NC MW email it is humiliating what Roz has done to you in email to AB

NC Here are more apologies from MW. Reads - Humiliating what RA has done. Will find safe ways for you to be involved with your team. ...Transphobia exists in our org as in other org.

NC: MW means RA here

MW Don't agree, it's not iding a specific person

To her left (out of shot) is David Hay, KC, for the respondent.

To her right is her instructing solicitor. They don't usually sit at the table but given NC's eye issues she's been helping out.

NC They are preparing for the presence of an unbeliever at this mtg who will ask qs.

KM Don't agree

More I dont agrees

Piss on the doorstep 😆

NC When MW appointed there was dissent but no threats of violence, eg pissing on doorstep as trans activists did.

So clear evidence that MW was LEADING cultural understanding of 'correct' workplace behaviour and 'incorrect' workplace behaviour.

You might go as far as to say MW was clearly favouring one employee and bullying out another...

... and we are wondering why MW has not been called as a witness for the defence.

Oh wait. No we are not.

Organisational response was hysterical. Kept shutters closed and investigated a bomb proof letter box!!

I think this means that if a client asked for an AFAB person, they would be assigned one, without outing other staff members. Is that right? I find it tricky to parse.

The witness has been clear that she regards MW (a male without a GRC) as a "biological woman". So no. They claim there is an opportunity to change their worker if not happy. They're playing language games to the detriment of women and girls.