Another GC Employment Tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #5

[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: 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
Thread #4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4991883-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-4

Exactly what I was thinking. Also remembering from Mermaids/LGBA case the difference between a charity and a lobby group.

Not true.

You can have members who have a variety of different beliefs within a political party. They can disagree with some of its policies.

Where there is an issue is over the single defining identity of the policitical party which is beyond discussion. For example: the labour party is supposed to uphold workers rights therefore someone who has a known history campaigning for the abolition of unions and rights isn't ok to join. Or someone who is a known fascist going the liberal democrats. Or a known communist joining the conservatives. Or an owner of an oil firm joining the greens. But these protected beliefs are actually only very limited in range and scope.

The whole point of a political party is to debate and form policies and come to agreement where ideas differ. They are not cloning machines where ideas are already decided and you just sign up to them when you join.

If I recall correctly, under the Equality Act a political party (at least registered ones) cannot expel an ordinary member for their beliefs but can remove a person having a management or public-facing role from that role because of their beliefs.

Also, you may hold differ views in a political party, but if you take on a role as an official your job is to promote the consensus even if you disagree with it privately. This does not stop you holding that view or even debating that view privately where it is appropriate within the party.

In this case the questions that were asked were entirely not only appropriate but also essential for the privacy and dignity of vulnerable service users because safeguarding. A failure to ask those questions - even if you believe in gender identity - potentially puts the organisation at risk of liability should something go wrong.

Its about duty of care as well as belief in this case.

You don't get to sweep these things under the carpet because someone happens to ask difficult questions you don't want to address.

See Schedule 16(1)(5):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/16

Surely that literally says all groups are covered by this law EXCEPT political parties which are a named exception to the rule!

It says that associations can restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic, but that doesn't apply to registered political parties.

about to start

DH considering the evidence

If you're a service offered to women on the basis of being a single sex service and given that MW's job was restricted to women, then all of that bollocks seems immaterial. A rape survivor has been told she's going to be supported by women and women only, only to be confronted by a surprise Mridul. It's wrong.

and my tablet just turned off

Thanks for everyone reporting/posting on this, I wish I could watch it. I wish we had video of NC!

You only see the back of her head. It's a very nice head back but not super engaging in itself.

DH's argument would seem to be that if service users don't complain about the service MW's organisation offers, then there can be no problem.

im currently WFTCHTJ...

and im in

Again, the idea that safeguarding is sufficient so long as nothing has, up until the present moment, gone wrong.

trying to explain the gross misconduct thing

administrative error

Dear fucking lord.

Theres a whole pile of crimes that involve negligence where ignorance isn't a sufficient defence.

nothing has anything to do with MW seems to be his current line

what else have they got? 😂 This is another case where I feel sorry for the respondents legal team in trying to provide an adequate defence.

DH now arguing that the non-attendance of key witnesses like AB and MW is wholly unremarkable.

ample evidence that ABs distress was genuine

So determined to protect MW.

Hmm. Yes.

Except every single medical scandal sees a pattern of people not complaining because they either fear what will happen to them if they do or they don't think they can complain because no one will listen to them or take them seriously.

And negligence STILL stands up as prosecutable despite this.