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

If the quote here is good "KT good worker. Didn't have an opinion on her being transphobic though I know her views were different from the org." It implies very heavily that the org has an org wide 'view' that constitues an undocumented/unofficial policy

Yep she fucked up.

Given that they apparently have no language to describe it, how could these people help a client who had been raped by a transgender woman?

Also, they are really terrible people.

Just reading the tribunal tweets:

NC - what are your criteria, how would you know he's a woman
KM - if he was a woman on his passport and drivers license
NC - so if it says so on his documents
KM - yes, he would have had to live as a woman and go through a lot to get that

Oh my Fucking God. Does this woman not realise that to get a chance of name on documents does not involve a man 'living as a woman and having to go through a lot'? It's about as taxing as filling in a form.

From Tribunal Tweets version of same comment - looks like that's what she did say:

TT
KM - I did find her a good worker, I did know that her opinions were different from our organisational approach.

Oh my Fucking God. Does this woman not realise that to get a chance of name on documents does not involve a man 'living as a woman and having to go through a lot'?

And to just to add to the general inappropriateness, this is thrown into sharp relief by the fact this is happening in a rape crisis centre.

"Go through a lot", ffs. Do they notice the users of their alleged service at all?

Contrary to popular belief, you don't even need a doctor to approve your change of sex marker on your passport. You just need a countersigned letter.

Crossdressers
We can only issue a passport if it’s established the customer is using their new identity for all purposes. You, the examiner, must not issue a passport in a name a customer uses for some but not all purposes.

If the customer cannot provide medical evidence, they must make a statement confirming they permanently use the preferred identity. They must also have a countersignatory or digital referee confirm their new identity and send us evidence if they have changed their name (see Names - evidence to change a name)

You must scan the customers signed statement that confirms they use the preferred identity on to the application (see gender recognition: scanning supporting documents)

www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition/gender-recognition-accessible#Crossdressers

My bold

They can't.

The Equality Act requires the recognition of both sex and those who have transitioned or are in the process of transitioning. I believe that being NB doesn't technically have a firm legal status in the UK because the law only recognises having transitioned to another sex or in the process of doing so thus being NB isn't necessarily covered at all under the Equality Act.

The purpose of the Equality Act is to require the balancing of needs of various characteristics to prevent discrimination.

In saying they won't engage with someone raising concerns about the protective characteristic of sex because they find it offensive they can not possibly be balancing the needs of different parties. They are automatically dismissing those concerns / any relevant protections that might be required. Thus they can not prevent discrimination and by default are discriminating by dismissing issues without discussion.

Not only that but it is recognised in law, that it is unlawful to discriminate against employees who do not believe in gender identity and are believe in biological reality.

So in dismissing concerns about sex they are a) discriminating on the basis of belief and b) discriminating against women by refusing to even acknowledge that sex matters when sex is enshrined in law.

I do not see how this case isn't going really badly for the defence but this is law and judges do all manner of weird things and technicalities I don't understand.

If the case now goes against Roz, it'll be a cluster fuck though because it will be impossible for anyone to be treated fairly in the workplace because there's such a fuzzy notion about what gender identity is (which seems to be based on workplace cultures alone and isn't something that you can ask for a formal policy on) and all safeguarding would automatically collapse.

The ramifications of Roz winning (and winning well) are also significant.

There may be many exploding heads within the NHS at that point.

I think Voltaire was ahead of his time on ERCC: “Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

These smug, insulated TWATS with their fashionable beliefs and their beeeee kiiiinddd, so fucking progressive they drive traumatised women away from the service set up to support them.

How dare they. HOW UTTERLY FUCKING DARE THEY.

Yep. And to validate their gender ideology.

They aren't there for the women and girls who need support, especially those who might need to speak to someone of the same sex. Because that might hurt a staff member's feelings.

It has become abundantly clear during this ET that ERCC's priorities are not the service users and their needs, wants and feelings but those of their staff.

Utterly repugnant.

It's worse than having to do no more than fill in a form. In many organisations now, a bloke in a wig and a frock need only intone the magic words, "I identify as a woman", and hey presto! Instant access to all and any female spaces/roles/jobs going.

For once, I'm actually going to write "Karens" and I feel that the posters here will understand that I'm being literal.

There are, indeed, women who have been subject to such attempts and attacks.

'Go through a lot'

Didn't one of manfriday change their driving licence just by filling in a form?

We're being gaslit! This is not a real ET. This is a satirical spoof written and directed by Ricky Gervaise.

These smug, insulated TWATS with their fashionable beliefs and their beeeee kiiiinddd, so fucking progressive they drive traumatised women away from the service set up to support them.

I know, I don't know how these idiotic women live with themselves. Zero self awareness.

Didn't one of manfriday change their driving licence just by filling in a form?

Yes. I don't think the process has become any more rigorous.

Surely the default assumption, if someone is asking if unknown people are men or women, is that they are using the dictionary definition, i.e. adult human male/female?
Why would you assume someone was asking about someone's gender identity when that is not defined in any way?

In other words, if you know the org says it's only women there, and you know they believe women are anyone who says they are women, you already KNOW that they are gender-women, so the only information you would need to seek is their sex.

Yet they insist that SUs were asking what people's genders were.

Bizarre and symptomatic of slightly chaotic thinking.

The situation is so monumentally fucked up that a lot of people just assume it cannot actually be that stupid and cannot believe that it actually is.

Non-binary does not come under the remit of gender reassignment does it, it is not recognised in the EqA or GRA.

Self -id as pointed out by Kemi Badenoch is not covered either.

The ramifications of Roz winning (and winning well) are also significant.

There may be many exploding heads within the NHS at that point.

You've no idea how much I hope that you're being prophetic.

However, this is Tier 1, isn't it? So, not binding?

Nevertheless, it casts quite a sidelight on the durability and sustainability of the (in)famous landmark case of Rose Taylor vs Jaguar LandRover in re: Non-binary status. (Nota Bene: without question Taylor's colleagues behaved very badly.)

In an effort to reduce my blood pressure and feel like I'm doing something constructive, I've contacted Beira's Place to find out how I can donate.

I've also asked if they shouldn't consider removing ERCC from their website.

So in dismissing concerns about sex they are a) discriminating on the basis of belief and b) discriminating against women by refusing to even acknowledge that sex matters when sex is enshrined in law.

Which suggests the whole thing is NWORIADS, as was actually stated in court. This belief, when manifested to its logical(?) conclusion, as it is being here, directly impinges on very specific legal rights.

Roz has done nothing wrong, and impinged upon no-one's rights - their constructive dismissal of her is wrongful discrimination.

Whereas the people around her are apparently unable to carry out their function due to their beliefs, and it's does not seem that they would be able to muster a WORIADS defence if they were fired for that. They're clearly mistreating women - service users and staff - because of the beliefs.

Genuinely, it does. There is no discernable difference between a man and woman under GI. Both apply to 'all humans' as far as I can tell.

I know it's more recent but is KM affecting to be ignorant of the recent attempt to introduce simplified processes in Scotland?

12 weeks residency, a swift declaration, and that's you?

PS: stop being interesting and diverting, Please. I have to finish these reviews and none of this is good for my blood pressure or ability to think clearly.