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

If he was capable of any sort of introspection, he wouldn't be there in the first place.

Statement from ERCC -

https://www.ercc.scot/statement-from-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-board-of-directors/

They should be 'saddened' for the atrocious way they treated Roz and their failure to support women who requested same sex rape crisis but I suspect that they are saddened that they've been found out for the bullies they are.

They will just weasel and say anything but sorry (sort from sorry they were caught). Wonder who their lawyers are?

It is worth remembering that we still have the compensation hearing to go. I vaguely remember in another case that damages awarded were higher than they might have been due to the behaviour of the respondent after they were found guilty (can’t remember if it was a defamation or discrimination case)

The trustee recruitment form is on Twitter and the questions are clearly designed to cut out anyone who doesn't believe TWAW

According to the judgment, their solicitors were Worknest Law, who I think also advised them throughout the processes they inflicted on RA. Clear idiocy there - of course WN are going to advise them that the advice they have given ERCC is correct and lawful.

If they'd gone to lawyers without skin in this particular game, they could have had a degree of impartiality upfront.

Can you imagine how much good these activists could have done by setting up refuges and clinics specifically for trans women? To be staffed with people who would completely understand their particular situation and angle?

But no. They chose to abuse women only spaces for their own use. This means that we can’t even be sure of the status of these people using the spaces (because some of the photos of males in women’s regimes certainly don’t look like they are victims in any way).

Totally agree, @HoneyButterPopcorn . Stonewall's annual income just a couple of years back was IIRC £8m.

This seems perfect in light of ERCC statement

How did you manage to get footage from inside ERCC so quick 😁

😂

An excellent well reasoned decision and another brilliant bit of advocacy from Naomi Cunningham who is one brave woman.

Does it matter? MW would have ignored any alternative advice on the law because it does not accord with MW’s world view. We can all see the Board was not appropriately constituted to provide an effective counterbalance to the CEO’s views and wishes.

Who else used Worknest at another tribunal? Google isn't helping...

Were they the ones advising OU in the Jo Phoenix's case? Or did we just know it was 'legal advice' but they wouldn't reveal who from for that one.

They're all running together in my brain now, the themes and preposterous justifications that come.up every time are so similar.

Maybe they just got some first year law students …

The OU was interesting as the one credible witness was the HR Advisor.

Whereas the HR Director on the working group never read the grievance!

who I think also advised them throughout the processes they inflicted on RA.

They did, I remember. We all looked at their website and they'd written articles about "trans rights" and dealing with GC people.

https://worknest.com/news/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-staff-with-gender-critical-views/

worknest.com/blog/dismissing-employees-for-offensive-beliefs-what-can-we-learn-from-the-forstater-decision/

You've sparked a question in my head.
Why is it the gender ciritcal people all going through the legal process all seem to have excellent well researched legal representation, and the opposing parties all seem to have universally comically incompetent legal representation?

I can't remember names and exact examples, but the quality difference always seems to stick in my mind. Extending it to witnessses, support dog person with their mum and attempt to have a solicitor with them while giving evidence is just a stand out example. But I'm pretty sure legal council has also been a bit iffy to put it mildly.

Am I imagining correlation here?

@lechiffre55 I suspect it has more to do with the TRA side being so batshit that no legal representation is going to be able to put their case without looking incompetent.

Why is it the gender ciritcal people all going through the legal process all seem to have excellent well researched legal representation

This isn’t quite true; Kevin Lister tried to represent himself presumably due to costs. There was someone else who tried to defend himself against a well know vexatious litigant until he was made to see sense and got legal counsel who sent the litigant scurrying for cover. I am sure there have been a few others too who haven’t been able to afford decent representation. And many more who haven’t bought cases because of it. I wish someone took unions to court for their discriminatory support.

The very public ones with good representation are the ones whose successful publicity has raised the required money.

@SaffronSpice I believe UCU (university and College Union) is facing a case for its role in preventing the screening of Adult Human Female at Edinburgh

And some of the TRA side have definitely been sub-par. The stonewall barrister in Allison's case seemed very badly prepared (even though she was assisted by RMW who is apparently the leading expert in this area according to RMW's own book). And the ERCC counsel was completely at sea misgendering his own witness and seeming to have no coherent argument

That is good, but I was thinking more for cases like Jo Phoenix’s where IIRC her union not only turned her down for support employment discrimination, their raison d’etra, but sat with her employer during the trial.

Yes this is right. IIRC think Kevin Lister's claim was not only he couldn't afford counsel (which he could have presumably crowdfunded for) it was also a conscious decision because he wanted justice to be accessible to normal employees so wanted to show it could be done (or something along those lines) - but obviously since he lost it actually rather suggested the opposite.