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

I know it wouldn't set a precedent but a result would be an important step on from Forstater and other advocates could argue along the same lines now that NC has led the way.

Non precedent setting cases are still useful learning opportunities, as other lawyers and those representing themselves can learn how to use the Forstater judgment and existing law to make a case.

I think the importance of this case is that, indirectly, it has put "trans-inclusive" policies on trial. Normally that shouldn't be an issue. Yes, "trans-inclusive" policies can cause a conflict with the rights of others, but for this case it's really at the sharp end of things, where the conflict is with the actual purpose of ERCC.

A secondary point is MW, and their fitness to act as the CEO of ERCC. The fact that ERCC had to structure their case around MW's non-appearance is as clear an indication of priorities as one could wish for.

To be clear a legal precedent is a decision that will bind a lower court to the reasons for a decision. It can cut across cases in to other courts. As i understand it an upper tribunal can only bind a lower one in its area of Law. The high court and above have the power to bind all courts below it.

However a lower tribunal reasons for a decision become “obiter” (opinion). Which means in other similar cases the lower tribunal can refer to it. Where there has been no appeal against the decision.

So if Roz wins and there is no grounds for appeal then the effect will be that employers may have to review policy and procedure regarding sex based services.

Actually, this is a neat summary: https://studymind.co.uk/questions/explain-the-different-types-of-judicial-precedent/

Yes, I do see that - a rape crisis centre can't have policies which make it unusable or less usable for its core service users. Hence David Hay's urging the Tribunal not to look at the merits of GII and trying to narrow the scope of their judgement in his oral submission. NC emphasised that the Tribunal don't have to assume that GII is WORIADS, just because GC belief and GII non-belief is. I am biased, but I think the way she argued RA's case left the Tribunal nowhere to go.

Thanks, this is what I was getting at.

Hi folks deletion was because of a reference to MW. Sorry MW was very mean of me.

Sincere much?

An apology's an apology for a' that.

[nods to Rabbie Burns]

And MW's Chieftain of the Puddin' Face.

Actual hur hur hur.

(With apologies to Rabbie)

'Ye see yon birkie ca’d a maid
Wha tilts, an’ twirls, an’ a’ that,
The craven fools bend at the word
He's but a coof for a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
The lipstick, heels an’ a’ that,
The lass o’ independent mind,
She looks an’ laughs at a’ that.'

I just tediously use their initials. It's completely fine, normal way to refer to people in written word.

I avoid pronouns if there is any chance I might upset a person or their internets forum security team.

Bez Mills (what / ever)

I hope it means that some "trans-inclusive" policies are legitimate while others are not. Roz Adams proposed ways to achieve some kind of balance between the needs of staff with gender issues and the needs of women who had been abused, but Edinburgh Rape Crisis weren't having it at all. Their management didn't seem to want any kind of balance, not even for the sake of their core service users.

I do hope that even if Roz Adams doesn't win (and I very much hope she does!), then the light that this case sheds on how an "inclusive" Rape Crisis service operates and its lack of care for its own service users will have a helpful effect when @IAmSarah's case e-ven-tu-all-y reaches the courts. Because she is a service user who has lost out from similar rigid and extreme policies.

Yes that's what I do. I became quite an expert during the Allison Bailey tribunal

To my mind, a "trans-inclusive" rape crisis centre is one that welcomes and supports women who claim to be men or non-binary on their own terms. The wishes or fragilities or identities of the staff and volunteers should not come into it. A trans-inclusive rape crisis centre would be sensitive to these women's needs, with a dedicated group, or even a special day or part of the building. Use whatever language they need to hear. Give them a male counsellor or fellow NB if they prefer. That's trans-inclusive. Gaslighting users about the sex of counsellors is just abusive.

Yes the part where ERCC employees have gone on record and said there are no men working there is gaslighty as all heck.

And for what? To indulge a male who has a cross-sex gender identity, at the expense of traumatised women. What the actual fucking fuck? Roz's case has shone a giant light on that murky fuckery and I'm so glad it has.

If being mean about someone is enough for a deletion - how come there are any threads on MN at all.

It was reported in the telegraph that the Equalities commission have been alerted to single sex exemptions being illegally used by rape crisis centres. I think that this relates to this particular case.

IMO having any type of provision in a rape crisis centre or refuge service for trans women is totally incompatible with the “for women by women” principle when most of these support services were founded in the seventies.

This case exposes that with knobs on.

In this case there is an inextricable link between employing a biological male, proffering GI, and the (predictable) confusion about how to address enquiries from women asking for a female support worker. As eloquently demonstrated by NC cross examination.

The misinterpretation of the sex based exemptions and the equalities Act as regards non binary.

The way NC has framed this case is going to make it very difficult for the judge to avoid commentary on the “trans inclusive” nature of this service.

which i very much hope will not only be a win for asserting sex realism, but impact on the women's only sector to return it to its proper function.

It is indeed an important case.

Now for a bloody rant. I worked in various SV and DV settings for over 20 years.

And more than once I have had to assert that there is a massive difference in support work and counselling. Ensuring clear guidelines on practice division and perameters.

Support being helping a victim/survivor in practical terms navigating every day challenges, sick leave rights, housing, benefits, work support etc.

Counselling being therapy to navigate emotions, self blame, self harm, PTSD, personality disorders, panic attacks, heightened fear etc.

Support requires training.

Counselling requires a full qualification.

The idea that there is a model of service that does not require a counselling qualification is very out model.

HOW VERY DARE THIS AGENCY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE BY ANY MEANS ABLE TO HELP IN THE RECOVERY OF WOMEN WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED SV WITHOUT QUALIFIED THERAPISTS

Was it Anne Ruzylo or Rhona Hotchkiss who reported that women prisoners recognised a fellow prisoner was a TW and asked the prisoner officers who were instructed to inform them that their fellow prisoner was a woman. Even when it made the women think they were losing their grasp on reality?

Really good points. Another consequence of being focused on the staff and not the users. They're not there to help women, they're there to be trans-inclusive and make an ideological point about men being women and sex not mattering at a RCC. The SA survivors are just the set dressing and the actual counselling or support is neither here nor there. It's politics.

IMO having any type of provision in a rape crisis centre or refuge service for trans women is totally incompatible with the “for women by women” principle when most of these support services were founded in the seventies.

Long before there was an issue about trans women being "included" in women's services many of the original RCS started to provide support for men, as did some DV services. (This was partly because man complaining there was no service for them expected women to do the hard work of setting up a service rather than getting off their back sides and doing it themselves.) But by and large these were separate services.

And some do provide services for trans identified people as separate services.

The problem is those who insist if must be inclusive. ie that TW have the right to be part of women's services.

And as problematic those who assert that lesbians are part of the rainbox coalition, and should be happy to be part of some generic queer service, rather than one set up for lesbians.

This push for inclusion is not only an attack on sex based rights but also a direct attack on the politics of the WLM which is that the service users are the ones who define what the service should be.

Not some political activists hijacking the history and traditions of women's services to further their political objectives.

Is it okay for me to be ranting, i spent years publicly defending women only services battling the male what about me bollocks.

Then retired from services got some deep therapy. Found peace in a new profession

Only to find they have put on a dress took up knitting and say what about me bollocks