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

Yes, exactly @Chrysanthemum5

Muslim is deliberately to give as an example of a marginalised woman, which the ERCC would claim to be someone they would take special care over.

Think it was more about lack of understanding due to English not being a Muslim woman's first language, but yes I know.

Going back to their response to RA's grievance.

RA believes MW is biased and has labelled her as transphobic. ERCC's complete answer was that MW acknowledged bias and withdrew because of that. MW also distressed by RA's actions. MW offered support to AB.

NC: not answering complaint that dissent from GI = transphobia, does it?

MS: RA said that disciplinary was going to discount accusations of transphobia. Therefore no need to deal with it.

Isn't that to clarify that there's an obvious clash with the requirements of someone who has the protected characteristic of belief, without needing to worry about the degree to which a non-religious service user's feelings count as belief?

Its more that it brings out into sharp focus how much trauma could be caused by their policies and MW as MW only sees BAME clients

Very good point.

@BlessedKali are you getting anywhere? I've never had a problem, but advice I've seen from others is to 'hang up' (the red telephone icon) and have another try, doing a test of the settings on your way in.

NC: grievance gives inadequate summary of RA's complaint, asks MW and then writes down MW's answer. Yes? MW calling the shots?

MS: Not true.

NC it's a constant theme of the document, you write an inadequate summary of RA's complaint, go and ask MW, and write down what MW says. Even at this stage of grievance process MW is calling the shots.

MS not true

I do like how NC has now got the witness saying sex realism rather than GC!

I see the point re Muslim women a bit, but think the point is wider than that. Women who have been raped had their agency taken from them. And then MW does it again. It's disgusting.

I’ve been following this throughout and thought it couldn’t get any worse to be proved wrong many times already, but have to admit to having a proper cry this afternoon with this witness’ disclosures

Legal representatives like NC must give gender cultists the most terrifying of nightmares. She is razor sharp and utterly unrelenting. Trying to stonewall her doesn't slow her down one bit.

Just been out and I'm catching up.

Just to clarify staff/board members at ERCC believe that:

Its against GDPR and privacy to talk about the sex of an employee BUT NOT against GDPR and privacy to disclose that an individual is a survivor. And the response from a board member only when directly challenged in court is 'errr yes whoops'.

They believe that MW is a brilliant woman, yet MW was removed from a disciplinary matter because they acknowledged they were biased. (Noting this removal does not appear to have resulted in retraining nor a disciplinary in its own right). This is the same person that disclosed that someone was a survivor without their explicit consent.

They then say they believe this is all an attack on MW because they are trans - not because they are a CEO who is biased in disciplinary matters and discloses sensitive personal information.

We are also told that MW is NOT a dominating force at ERCC and isn't controlling the narrative and orginisational culture by ERCC representatives (and they chant repeatedly TWAW).

MW isn't even prepared to stand as witness despite being CEO and despite clearly being right in the thick of the disciplinary process and the orginisational culture.

Is that correct? I have read all this right? I am understanding what they've been saying?

Most definitely a bigger issue, but probably the example that would make the most impact in the tribunal panel memories

I think the muslim women bit is partly cos it's the team that MW is most likely to be involved with - minority service users

Hope you're OK.

Watching for the first time this afternoon (thanks for the joining info).

I still can't quite believe this happened. It makes Nineteen Eighty-Four look restrained. Just utterly bonkers. And also yes, the complete bastards.

I'm so sorry, it's appalling. X

True, a bit like the Yaniv cases.

Oh I'm not keen on this. Too close to race realism.

I can't see the tribunal finding anything but discrimination after today. They would have had to have been completely asleep if they reach any other decision.

Ah, she thinks women are choosing to be traumatised.

I think the whole silly, hyperbolic overreaction of "AB" and the pandering to them sits nicely in counterpoint with the dismissive way raped women who don't believe males are women are treated.