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 think Ijeoma Omambala did as much as she could for Stonewall in the Allison Bailey appeal, given the legal tactic of “nothing to see here, the original decision was correct.”

Why there are no go-to GI equivalents of Leigh Day or Doyle Clayton, or Naomi Cunningham KC, Akua Reindorf KC and Ben Cooper KC is a mystery. They’re the people I’d have on speed dial if I ever had a discrimination problem at work. Hearing a case with those barristers on opposing sides on a related topic would be absolutely fascinating, because the highest quality arguments would be put forward. So you could have more confidence that the decision was made with every single pertinent fact robustly made.

The defence council (GI believers) are on the back foot from the start because very few (if any) witnesses can explain coherently what their GI belief is and why they treated the claimant like a pariah.

Why there are no go-to GI equivalents of Leigh Day or Doyle Clayton, or Naomi Cunningham KC, Akua Reindorf KC and Ben Cooper KC is a mystery.

They work for Garden Court Chambers. 🎵sad trombone noise🎵

Chrysanthemum5 · Today 14:36

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).

Bob's a legend in they's own lunchtime.

SaffronSpice · Today 14:44

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

I wonder if she could sue for her subs back and possibly for not being provided with the contracted services she required?

I mention this, because I know a guy who sued the RAC for over 20 years of dues, when they wouldn't recover his ancient BMW motorbike, on the grounds that it was his fault for having an old bike. They had the details and knew its age. They had to pay it all back with interest and for the recovery by another firm.

the ERCC counsel was completely at sea misgendering his own witness and seeming to have no coherent argument

Even the best lawyer would be somewhat hamstrung by the fact that there is no coherent argument. They are literally trying to defend the indefensible (and the incoherent indefensible, at that). Although it's also true that many seem to be woefully underprepared as well.

I wonder if she could sue for her subs back and possibly for not being provided with the contracted services she required?

She would be better off suing for her legal fees she had to incur due to them not fulfilling their side of the contract.

If you read various discussions in Roll on Friday there are quite a few legal posters putting the GI case (not often in a coherent way).

But in terms of quality, a brief can only work with the material available and GI evidence and witnesses do seem to be chaotic and generally incapable of critical thinking. Plus the GI institutions / staff persist in acting unfairly.

Its very strange that none of those who helped achieve this win for Roz Adams and women's sex based rights have posted a news story / statement.

I have checked the barristers (of Outer Temple Chambers) instructing solicitor (gunnercooke), Unite, even NVC where Roz is very active. Not one has said everything.

Find it a bit odd as usually they do.

Even if they didn't totally believe what they are arguing for, why wouldn't they want people to know they have been sucessful.

Maybe just me, but that sad trombone noise is exactly how I hear the name of a certain Edinburgh rape crisis manager in my head.

Somebody who has made a statement is MissFredaWallace
https://medium.com/@missfredawallace/edinburgh-rape-crisis-attacked-4828ce5489f2

Its like an upside down world !!

"Roz Adams has seemingly won an employment tribunal"

seemingly?

"Wadhwa has dedicated the last 14 years of her professional life to supporting women who are victims of sexual violence and has now been forced out of public life. Her only crime in the eyes of JK Rowling and her conscripts, is the fact she is unapologetically transgender."

FW is pretty short on facts.

Only in the world of TRAs would an actual event be seriously described as "seemingly?"

Miss Fred is delusional on so many levels.

Can you negotiate a settlement after the judgment but before the remedy hearing? Perhaps they're doing that.

There are some absolutely phenomenal women barristers and solicitors (and indeed men) who are doing their best in so many ways to address the societal capture without honest, analytical and rigorous debate that has frankly caused trouble where there was none and sowed seeds of division between the LGB and T communities. A dreadful shame but truth and fact must always see the light of day. Many good legal teams probably get ditched when they refuse to drink the Cool Aid.

Let's not forget, the entire legal team for the Brighton Rape Crisis centre v IamSarah are all male and doing it pro bono. Yes, an all male legal team arguing that a rape victim has no right to single sex support. The optics on that are going to be WILD!

Naomi Cunningham is not yet in silk but I’m sure she will be soon (I hope)!

Some counsel don’t post success or loss in these cases now as the pile ons and hate mail and malicious regulatory reports are awful and very time consuming to deal with.

So, anyway, sense appears to be prevailing.

Wow! What fuckwit thought that was a good idea?

But I thought one of them IS a woman! 😶

(Please read this with the required sarcastic tone that written words just cannot convey)

I've been thinking about this since the Jo Phoenix case

If a person is a member of a trade union and their union refuses to provide them with legal support because of that person's gender critical beliefs, why can't that person bring a discrimination claim against their union?

And certainly claim any legal fees they've had to pay because the union refused to represent them.

Maybe it's a stupid question, but you don't have to be in an employee/employer relationship to bring a discrimination claim, do you?

Oh, well that’s ok then! (Equally sarcastic tone).

To be clear, I am all in favour of hiring the best people for a job, whether male or female. I also like things to not be hideously expensive, so pro bono is good. But given this is about women’s rights, sex is going to be very relevant to and very visible in the case (and media reporting of the case). I’d have thought that would be major consideration for the organization considering both the process and outcome will have a lasting effect on PR and funding.

As @Poinsettiasarevile said, OPTICS!

The optics are going to be something to behold that's for sure. Dress it up however you like people will see the all male doing it for free legal bods trying to shout down a woman who just wants one session where it's just women!

It's hopefully going to be a shit show for the pro bono side!

Blimey, Fred Wally's piece in Medium is rather counterfactual... I had to give up a few paragraphs in.

Not a stupid question! Yes there are other kinds of discrimination, not just employment; for example there can be discrimination in access to goods and services too. And employment discrimination covers trade unions as well as employers.

But it is still complicated. There is a single Equality Act 2010 which covers the different "protected characterstics" and no "protected characteristic" is supposed to trump any of the others, but there are still some differences in details for different characteristics and different situations. And some guidance and practices are inherited from the older acts which were brought together under the Equality Act 2010. (Not a lawyer here so don't rely on me!)