The chair of SEEN is being sued.

[PriOn1]

We can’t post Crowdfunder links here, but there is now a Crowdfunder entitled “Chair of SEEN sued for saying 'only women menstruate'by Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley”

Text from website:

Who are you?
I'm Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley. I work for an arms-length body to a government department (part of the Civil Service) and love my job. I'm also gender critical, and chair of a governmental department SEEN (Sex Equality and Equity Network). SEEN represents those who are gender critical in our workplace.
What can you tell us?
The way I describe the case is restrained by my situation. I am writing this in a personal capacity, but am still employed and must comply with my employer's code of conduct and the Nolan Principles of Public Life. This places certain restrictions on me.
I’ve given as much information as I can, but I hope that what I set out below is sufficient to understand what’s going on.
So what happened?
I work for an arms-length body to the main government department. The case has been brought by a claimant who is an employee of another arms-length body. The claimant is taking their own employer, the government department and me to court.
Among other matters, the claimant is suing the government department for allowing our departmental SEEN network to exist (on the basis that the existence of the network has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment for the claimant).
What is the SEEN network?
SEEN (the Sex Equality and Equity Network) is an official cross-governmental staff network. We also have networks in three government departments (including the one being taken to court). SEEN is known as the gender critical network and is the only civil service network that clearly treats sex and sexual orientation as concepts defined in the Equality Act, which should never be conflated with or replaced by ‘gender identity’.

Yep!

Also "the preliminary hearing will commence at an employment tribunal next week (25 March). Duemmer Wrigley and Defra were approached for comment. The claimant could not be contacted as their identity is not yet known".

I am a member of Affinity Union - I joined after seeing it recommended on here, as it seems very supportive of free speech.

Donated.

disciplinary action against Duemmer Wrigley

Has any claimant in the past been awarded that as remedy?

I'm just in the process of giving a payment. Confirmation text appears to be in the aether...

It's done. Nearly £34,000!

Seems very unlikely to me. How would it work? How could the ET decide what disciplinary measure was right? What power would it have to compel performance?

The more I hear about this case the more it sounds like a litigant in person’s DIY claim.

Good grief. Thanks for the heads up.

Donated.

The more I hear about this case the more it sounds like a litigant in person’s DIY claim.

Or they’ve been put up to it by someone who isn’t properly supporting them.

I reckon the £40K will be in the pot by tonight.

porridgecake · Today 15:10

I reckon the £40K will be in the pot by tonight.

Judging by the rate at which it's going, I'd say so, too. She'll be bathing in cry bully crocodile tears after work!

Up to £34,300 and that's gone up about 150 in the last few mins. Where is all this support coming from? It's incredible.

I'm surprised SEEN haven't put out anything to their mailing list drawing attention to this, now that it's hit the news.

My last comms from them was 'the letter' which was a shocker, frankly.

Is there a secret board for SEEN members or anything? I've heard such things exist...

I do wonder how the complainant must be feeling seeing the support fly in.

Usual suspects on here are particularly quiet too.

Aren't you sharing the Crowdjustice link with friends? I know I am. I imagine it's the normal social networking and this board gets thousands of hits everyday. Most women read and don't post but many are still supporting crowdfunders.
My best friend and I have been follwing these issues since 2015 and contributing to any crowd funders through the years. We may not be in a position to take to the streets (yet) but this is a simple way many women who support defending our rights can contribute.

Definitely

Red China struggle session in all but name.

I left Unison - I asked for evidence that we're aligned with the far-Right etc etc as they claim and they didn't come back to me.

@JumpInAndSwim Up to £34,300 and that's gone up about 150 in the last few mins. Where is all this support coming from? It's incredible.

I would guess a lot of very pissed of women Civil Servants who have had to sit through years of keeping their powder dry until the right opportunity crops up.

Is there any kind of expectation on Claimants to go through their employer’s internal complaints/ grievance / dignity at work procedures before making a claim at Employment Tribunal?

I’ve just pledged. Elspeth’s got £34,598 now!

I was wondering the same thing. How come it's ramped up to this level so quickly? Were there any attempts to settle grievances in-house?

I suppose more details will emerge next week.

Yes, and all those other professional women who feel they can’t speak for fear of censure or losing their jobs.

Have contributed a bit.

Still, many a mickle makes a muckle.

That’s just it, isn’t it? We might be silent at work but that doesn’t mean we aren’t active. The TRA brigade take our silence as the mistaken belief that we aren’t here at all.

I can see how an employee could put in a complaint/grievance against a colleague in the same employer and covered by the same Dignity at Work policy and disciplinary procedures, and how that complaint/grievance could lead to disciplinary action if the person complained about was found to have breached internal procedure.

However it’s difficult to see how employer no 1 could require employer no 2 to subject a member of employer no 2’s staff to disciplinary procedures, in order to prevent employer no 1 losing an ET. Unless they are not separate employers and are just dispersed units within the same employer, I suppose.

Presumably the claimant is trying to argue that i) their employer has taken insufficient action to protect them from harassment; and that ii) taking adequate steps to protect them from harassment = silencing any and all discussion which recognises that biological sex exists or fails to agree that someone who declares themself to be a member of the opposite sex becomes a member of the opposite sex.

In other words whilst gender critical beliefs may be WORIADS, claimant does not want to hear them so shut up shut up shut up shut up, punish the witch and burn down her house. Such an inclusive and tolerant position on the part of the claimant, I’m sure we all agree.

If makes you wonder if the Claimant has read the Fahy judgment and thinks that they are in an equivalent position, completely ignoring the fact that Fahy was singled out and targeted by her colleagues. Very different from hearing someone express a view you don’t like.