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

There is no MNHQ. You have to email.

You can't tag "MNHQ" - that's not a username for the admin team. You need to email them.

It would help if everybody did am going to now

Does MW have a GRC? I thought not, but perhaps am mistaken?

No, no GRC. But if a specific person demands other people don't use grammatically correct pronouns to refer to them, Mumsnet go along with it. You're allowed to use they/them rather than she, though.

Thanks @Snowypeaks

Touché.

The truth hurts!

Well Naomi Cunningham the claimant's barrister has said all now, openly, at the Tribunal and it's a matter of record both via on TwiX and on here from yesterday.

@Karensalright maybe repost your post with the correct sex but removed - if MMHQ are going to delete for correct sexing that's a shame on them but we can't let that stop people reading your very clear summary

Bit not but - can't edit on phone

Have requested an explanation before i reframe post as i don't want to risk another deletion as i was suspended a while back!

Justabaker

Many thanks to you and your colleagues for the transcribing. Forgot to say earlier.

snuffling for outrage like a truffle pig
@Justabaker an apt image..

Interesting from submissions yesterday - the parties paid for a transcript. And then made it available to the Panel. We had no further complaints from respondents counsel 'I didn't say that'.

Maybe they decided that horse had left not only the barn but also the territory.

karensalright, Justabaker

Another thing that strikes me - is RA claiming that she was harassed because of her beliefs? That the way the disciplinary and investigation and the way those processes were handled, as well as her original query, amounted to harassment?

There are some people for whom influencing women into policing what other women can write about wrt to curtailment of rights is quite the frisson.

NC's submission was direct discrimination by harassment because of a protected characteristic - belief, direct discrimination by harassment by subjecting her to a disc for a protected characteristic, indirect discrimination because manifestation of belief was treated as matter for disciplinary.

Thank you all for the updates and commentary, caught up now.

Double thumbs up.

@Snowypeaks yes she was harassed because the “disciplinary” had no foundation, all she had done was ask for clarity regarding a SU query. Nothing went external. Under the Rape Crisis standards, there should be open dialogue and discussion with staff and SU over policies.

Fair enough.

I wonder if MNHQ might confirm whether it's acceptable or not for posters to quote directly from the contemporaneous account provided live by Tribunal Tweets (an account which wasn't contested by the Respondent), citing provenance?

Naomi Cunningham's closing submission is very clear, and is a matter of public record.

Justabaker, karensalright

NC's submission was direct discrimination by harassment because of a protected characteristic - belief, direct discrimination by harassment by subjecting her to a disc for a protected characteristic, indirect discrimination because manifestation of belief was treated as matter for disciplinary.

So if RA wins, we have a judgement that you can't have a legitimate workplace policy which effectively outlaws GC beliefs or manifestation of them, because enforcing it would be harassment? So for example mandatory pronouns, or asking employees more than once to state pronouns, all potentially harassment? Ditto online forms for recruitment within an organisation, or surveys or training courses which won't let you proceed unless you accept that you have some gender identity?

Apologies if it was mentioned at the time, but I notice that Miren resigned as trustee a week after her testimony.

I got two deletions.
First deletion for saying I would test the non hate crime of seeing if someone without a GRC but wearing a sari could be correctly sexed .
And the second deletion for correctly sexing someone without a GRC wearing a sari.
And for avoiding any more deletions Indira Gandhi is a woman.

It would be a judgment but a Tier 1 one which doesn't set a precedent, iirc.

Not that Tier 1 status has stopped the publicity machine about the 'landmark' Taylor vs Jaguar…(And, as has been mentioned, the success of that reflects the ghastly harassment and may well have been less about the claims re: NB status.)