Another GC Employment Tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #4

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gender 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 or KT: 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): 22-23 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Miren Sagues (MS): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katie Horburgh (KH): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)

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
Thread #3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4990903-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-3

Missed the first bit there as they came back

Witness: ERCC says that TWAW is right

There is a TOTAL non-acceptance of any other position. How can you respect an opinion that sex is real if you do not acknowledge the position exists and that your own policy is completely infalliable and 'right'? How can you ensure you DON'T discriminiate if this is the case?

Its the whole 'if you can't see sex you can't see sexism' point in a different way. If you can't see the belief that sex is real is a valid position, you can't see discrimination against people who think this. You can only see it as 'fair' to get rid of them.

NC Board wasn't given copy of appeal outcome?
MS no
Question: Who would have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the board were given all relevant advice / documents so that they could ensure that the organisation wasn't being left exposed to a legal challenge?

Another question: Why didn't anyone on the board ask whether they'd had a copy of the appeal outcome?

Third question: Who WAS thinking about organisational (corporate) responsibilities as a charity?

MS AB id as nb and our trans inclusive policy is that nb don't adhere to the binary

Your regular friendly reminder that NB is not recognised in law

NC. No. That some people think like that, that sex matters. Isn't that enough? Ercc is saying our service is not for you, go away.
MS No we are saying this is our policy, that TWAW. We explain this.

If someone is asking about whether they recognise sex, why do they think they are doing that? If they then explain that their policy is TWAW, what do they think the consequences are of that, if they are explaining it to someone who is asking about sex?

To have the audacity to say that they don't think anyone is self excluding is appalling. As I said on an earlier thread one of the features of very vulnerable women is knowing and understanding 'the silences' and the gaps in what is NOT said.

They know EXACTLY why women are asking this and what they will do if told TWAW.

Exactly what I am thinking. If a SU asks for a female member of staff you provide one, just as a SU asking for a person with a woman gender identity would get one, and not someone with a non-binary gender identity.

I've no idea what's going on now

they are going into RA's grievance letter and how it was dealt with

NC reads RA complaint that ercc culture is of contempt for gc beliefs. Fair summary?

MS [long pause, doesn't understand. Finally agrees that is the complaint]

NC Grievance outcome. You don't touch on that complaint at all.

MS no

NC Any reason not to deal with that complaint

MS I talked in general terms that RA had chance to talk c topic in general, didn't go into details.

NC but complaint c org culture, using 'terf', bigots, coming from CEO at top. Didn't that merit an answer?

MS My answer was that RA had opportunity to discuss her view c trans incl.

NC you thought that sufficient?

MS y

NC are you aware emails like this were filed under hate
MS y
NC should this have been filed in folder called hate emails. Anything hateful?
MS don't know. There is a misunderstanding c trans.
NC Anything hateful
MS yes cos criticising the rape crisis centre and the CEO

Misunderstanding = hate
Criticism = hate

MS would have to understand what they mean by hate. It's important to read and consider them. I would hope they were. This was before my time.

"I have no responsibility to anything that happened before I took a role on the board"
Err...... When you come into an organisation and you think there may be an issue that predates your time, due dilagence would dictate you'd look into it so you were fully aware of whether it was problematic or not. You'd be liable for its on going use or anything that resulted from its existance that was on your watch.

NC Reading RA - I believe invest officer used biased lang etc in effort to dismiss me.

NC Your reply, is just a short para c interview with RA. That's a superficial and inadequate answer to that complaint isn't it.

MS I reviewed all interviews Nico had done with everyone. I didn't consider Nico's q to be loaded or leading qs

Witness reviewed all interviews Nico had done and Nico wasn't asking loaded and leading questions

SUMMARY FOR PEOPLE COMING IN FROM TRENDING.

This is commentary on an employment tribunal brought by a support worker at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. ERCC CEO is a transwoman, who has stated publicly that ERRC service users had no rights to request a biologically female support worker, and if they did they must be re educated to reframe their trauma.

RA, the claimant, is a support worker who asked for clarification on behalf of a service user seeking reassurance that she would not be allocated a male support worker. The service user had been allocated a non binary support worker, with a masculine sounding name and was understandably worried.

RA was told to inform the service users that 'no men' work at ERCC. When she challenged this and asked for clarification on how to refer to the non binary support worker, she was suspended and put through a formal disciplinary process.

We have heard through testimony that ERRC believes that

1. Sex is irrelevant
2. Service users, predominantly female victims of sexual assault, have no right to no the sex of their support worker
3. Women wanting guarantees they will only be supported by women, will be turned away, and are not signposted to services that could support them
4. E mails, many from traumatised women, protesting the appointment of a male CEO, were put in a folder labelled 'hate'
5. RA was originally told she was being investigated for gross misconduct. This was later framed as an 'admin error'

Onto transmen in men's toilets

Nico shamefully seeking to elicit a forbidden belief that transmen are women

Witness: I think she's just clarifying

NC reads c RA mentioning it might be hard for TM to go to men's toilets. Nico response was, is the implication that TMAW and therefore that's why the problem. Nico shamelessly seeking to get to a forbidden belief, that TMAW. Quite a leap from the toilet comment to Nico going to is she implying TM are actually W.

MS Nico is just clarifying.

NC Nico is prompting AC to give evidence of heresy, unacceptable belief that TMAW

ME TOO, OMG she's amazing. So they admit the CEO is a MAN?!

NC trying to show how Nico led the witnesses in their statements.

There is a kind of closed circle between Scottish local and central government (which after all provide the funding) and these charities. They have to tell govt what they want to hear (that they are trans inclusive etc) on their applications to get funded. They employ people who prioritise what the govt want, i.e. trans inclusion, and tell the government it's all fine, and they silence or ignore anyone who would challenge that view. Whether it's ignoring HEAL (back in thread 1) or putting emails from raped women into a "hate" folder, or playing word games with service users, or bullying Roz Adams out of her job or applauding when a GC protestor is ejected from a relevant meeting with the First Minister.

(Does anyone have a link to that meeting/video with Sturgeon? I don't remember the details but I think it was to do with women's services and local govt?)

NC saying that Nico offered the word transphobic to witness to describe RAs behaviour

My god they really did have thought police there

Probably more fruitful to raise awareness amongst the Scottish public who vote these goons in.

NC Nico is calling RA transphobic but saying that she's clever in her comments not to come out with it. RA might say something positive like including everyone, but she's actually being transphobic.

MS I think Nico just clarifying to say if it's true or not

Friendly reminder at this point about which ERCC staff are NOT taking the witness box.

WHY?

(This is precisely what NC line of questioning is deliberately trying to highlight).

Until that catches Spanish grammar and usage are clear....

No binario is male
No binaria is female

Ironically 😂

NC onto MW s behaviour! A troubling attitude towards confidentially!

NC RA c different treatment between her and other staff. Do you agree respect for confidentiality of survivors stories should be second nature to anyone who works in a rcc

MS y

NC email to all staff. Challenge to a decision made to provide counselling services to a man who id as a man

MS a cis man, yes

NC Long email from MW in response. MW v displeased to be challenged.

MS [reads]

NC email has redactions. We see MW iding an individual close to MW as a survivor of sex violence. An extraordinary attitude of CEO of ercc to privacy of another person.