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

missed what he said

Thanks everyone for reporting on proceedings.

Flicking through Private Eye whilst following and this appeared!

(open image for full text)

Thats the real issue isn't it?

The encroachment of the work place into private beliefs to a degree which isn't about company reputation but about social engineering.

basically Roz was told what to do multiple times and she did something different therefore she deserved all the shit she got

invites them to dismiss all heads of the claim

Except thats not how safeguarding works.

You still retain responsibility to do something even if superiors say you must follow orders...

...oh wait.

Miss W hostile environment

informal convo between 2 support workers , same level as the claimant, no managerial position so does not a culture make

still wittering on

on about taylor v land rover now

reckons that will cover non binary i think

Didn't mean to quote!

Surely this is a wholly unconvincing argument?? 🤷🏻‍♀️

It's impossible for me to be impartial here.

he really hasn't got much at all has he?

DH: the Jaguar case shows that gender reassignment is broad enough to include non-binary so AB's rights are super important.

Dammit I forgot this was on today and missed it....stupid work getting in the way. Thanks to everyone taking notes!

i think he's done

onto NC

She's back!

NC now replying.

DH: the Jaguar case shows that gender reassignment is broad enough to include non-binary so AB's rights are super important.

NC is taking issue with "trans inclusive". I raised that very point hours ago!

I think I'm beginning to see why NC stood her ground months back and insisted on oral submissions. When explaining verbally what gender identity ideology is and how it is supposed to operate, for example in this case, putting the genderist case in a logical and coherent way is not so easy.

My Wi-Fi dropped out! it won't let me back in now

I wasn't following Mr Hay so I went out for a bit, and I've come back to NC speaking in a clear voice in sentences I can understand.

The case was about grim workplace bullying - and wasn't appealed, so not a precedent. The 'protected characteristic' issue remains moot.

Did NC just refer to the "resounding silence from MW" ? She's ramping up. Saying it's legitimate to draw inferences from absence of witnesses.