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

if you want to see a woman you will see a woman
( but the woman may not be female )

MS has been trained in what to think and say but doesn't have a grip of how to walk the tightrope of TWAW while respecting the Forstater decision, and how to present the position of ERCC.

This witness is glorious at showing up the batshittery of their bullshit policies

MW is male?

No

Utterly brilliant by NC. The witness has just confirmed that it is organisational policy to discriminate against those with GC (sex realist) beliefs.

That organisational policy is that these people are 'wrong'.

Oh wow, going round in circles, witness can genuinely not see the difference between a TW and a woman

if you ask for a woman you will not get a non binary

Yes, I call bullshit on that one. As does everyone else, no doubt!

NC brings it to the point of how this could impact on SU's boundaries

But you might get a man who has inner woman feels. And a penis.

MS If someone wants to see a woman they will see a woman.

NC Supposing they say I mean a human being who is biologically female and that is what I mean by a woman. Your stance is

MS Service users have a choice of worker. They will get the choice they are asking for.

MS All workers at ercc at woman or nb. If they ask for a woman they will see a woman.

NC But MW is male.

MS No. Cos our trans inc policy says TWAW. No woman working at ercc

NC You said MW is an amazing woman who respects people's boundaries. This policy - does that count as respecting people's boundaries.

MS Don't understand. Ercc making v clear statement c where we stand.

I did wonder whether MS having English as a second language would have an impact on her testimony.

It's very easy to repeat the mantras, but much more difficult to explain the nuances (even with English as the mother tongue).

unfortunately yes :(
but we are respecting your boundaries in doing so

thanks@Mmmnotsure for posting the fuller versions, as today is hard to listen to/follow

So MW is a woman because ERCC policy says so, and that means there are no men employed there. What if they wrote a policy saying all staff were under 30 - it wouldn't make it true

So their policy is also that self ID is law in Scotland? Even when it isn't?

That is pretty much what they are saying. ERCC policy trumps reality.

Witness has aligned her beliefs unquestioningly to ERCC policy

Onto the admin error

Witness it was an error

NC reads letter sent to RA. The third point being gross misconduct. Was that word 'gross' the only mistake, in by accident?

MS Yes. Apprentice sent it. Admin error.

NC You make it sound like just a typo

MS RA was upset. I apologised, it wasn't a nice thing to have read.Panel apologised.

Saying it was gross misconduct was an 'error'

Imagine that policy in a school. You have a defined age range for each year but parents put their kid into the school who then comes back home complaining their class is full of grown-ups identifying as 11-12.

In agreeing how bad the error is the witness is helping RA's case.

What a dreadful letter to receive, threat of dismissal