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’.

Jane Russell was employed to defend the Environment Agency in the case against Andreas. The claimant in that case was granted anonymity. The Environment agency did not apply for the case against them to be struck out. So I think that that part of the case continues, JR appears for them and that claimant has anonymity. That is probably why JR didnt apply for the case to be struck out. It may also explain why the case may get to be heard if not in private then with reporting restrictions.

Presumably Naomi and/or Charlotte are still representing SEEN, who are intervenors in this case. The complainant's have dropped their cases against the individuals, probably so that they can just deal with the employers. Then you employ someone like JR to lose the case for you.

It's going to be a very interesting case.

I know some of the posts are a bit tongue in cheek but the reality is a KC like JR should be able to argue both sides of an argument. Ultimately it’s her professional credibility on the line.

I would not be surprised if JR provided a creditable defence for the respondents as she has a lot of
experience hearing NCs arguments.

Plus we all know the GC arguments don’t require you to suspend reality.
Maybe we will get Rupert the Vet rather that Pete the plumber😂.

Most barristers, regardless of the type of law they practice, eventually end up specialising in one side or another - criminal KCs are usually primarily defence or prosecution. As I understand it, anyway (IANAL).

It would be very interesting to see all the GC/GI ones arguing for the other side. I think NC might spontaneously combust.

@SqueakyDinosaur I agree they usually do specialise in one side of the argument and technically JR is actually representing the employer which is what she did for SP.

So she is arguing from a similar footing of Employers legal responsibilities, policies and procedures etc.

Yes, but this time she's going to have to argue that the employer was acting reasonably in allowing SEEN to be set up and continued, AIUI. It will be fun to watch that!

Absolutely.

From the way JR argued the case she was not a professional doing her job she was a zealot. IANAL but some of those who are didnt seem to think much of her "professional credibility" at the time of the Sandie Peggie case.

I expect her argument to be we didnt really want to do this but we had to or we'd have had to disband all our other networks. I dont expect her to defend what was said, just to put as much distance as she can between the employer and their employees.

I’m very interested in what she says on behalf of DEFRA/their quango.

Yes JR will be trying to demonstrate that in allowing SEEN the employers were acting impartially and balancing conflicting rights. JR doesn’t have to espouse GC views to do this.

i hope my beans do well.

I think RMW is seriously handicapped in this field by a sense of personal outrage at what the law actually says. He's probably a much better lawyer on any subject he feels less strongly about. Same may go for JR if less personal.

It is so easy for JR to make a case that the employer is being impartial that she could have applied for the case to be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. She didnt try that and so is not acting in the best interests of her client, who now has to pay for a lengthy court case. She was trying to get the case heard in private and with no-one there to defend SEEN.

RMW is hoping for a biased judge and the employers not appealing. @prh47bridge what are the rules about an intervenor in a case appealing if the employer chooses not to do so? Can someone who was initially a respondent appeal a decision if the case against them personally was dropped?Or if there is a biased judge can SEEN bring an action against the employers to ban other networks?

Perhaps I am being naive, but I don't see how the claimant could possibly win this case. But then i don't understand how Maria Kelly lost her case, given what the law is, so I guess if you get a judge like the one in the Kelly case, there could be a problem.

This is what Michael Foran said about the case back in 2024:

"Very strange case. Claiming that the existence of a workplace network focused on a protected group is itself harassment strikes me as the kind of intolerant and discriminatory mentality that fell foul of Article 17 ECHR in Thomas v NHS. This mentality is arguably not WORIADS".

https://x.com/i/status/1857145256984355005

what are the rules about an intervenor in a case appealing if the employer chooses not to do so?

It depends! If they have full party status, they can seek permission to appeal if they are adversely affected by the judgement. If they are acting as a friend of the court, i.e. making submissions to assist the court on a point of law, it is unlikely they will be able to appeal.

Can someone who was initially a respondent appeal a decision if the case against them personally was dropped?

If they are directly impacted by the final decision they may be able to appeal. So in this case I think SEEN may be able to appeal if the judgement goes against them, making your third question moot.

SEEN would obviously be affected if the case went against their employers so they probably should have been allowed full party status but I guess we have to wait and see if they have that status or not. I was thinking of the 2 people who were originally respondents personally for the second question.

A belief in gender identity has never been shown in court to be WORIAD. In this case the complainants views very clearly conflict with the right of others to hold views that have been held to be WORIADs. I dont believe such views are cogent either. Wouldnt it be great if the judge says just that....

Do we know who the judge is? And the extent of his/her likely bias/impartiality? And does @BezMills do a Yorkshire running commentary as well as a Fife one? 😁

Is there a risk for TRAs that this case allows the Grainger criteria to be explored for both sides, GC (already upheld in Maya’s successful appeal) and a belief in gender identity?

As I've said elsewhere, I would be amazed if GI beliefs are held to be not WORIADS. The bar for a belief to be ruled as not WORIADS is very high (although the ET in Forstater clearly got that wrong).

The courts clearly distinguish between beliefs and the manifestation of those beliefs. So, for example, religions that say homosexuals should be executed are regarded as WORIADS, but adherents of those religions would be in a lot of trouble if they actually executed any homosexuals. So my view is the courts would rule that people with GI beliefs are entitled to believe they have changed their sex and they should not be discriminated against for holding that belief, but they can't force that belief on anyone else.

Belief in a gender identity might be held to be WORIAD - but the particular belief held by the claimants in this case is that it does entitle them to force that view onto other people. I hope the judge will clearly state that that belief - or manifestation of belief if your prefer - is an unacceptable impingement on the rights of others and therefore not WORIAD. You can still believe in gender identity, you cannot force that belief on others, whether by requiring them to say that men can menstruate or to refer to you by your preferred pronouns.

Is there any update on whether this can be followed online? Or if it can be attended in person? I see Tribunal Tweets are hoping to follow it.

I had no response to my email to LeedsET. I used the email address from their website and the case numbers from the November 2025 judgement.

i know some people on here have access to court listings, is there more up to date information we could use to make the request?

I checked the court listings again this morning (anyone can sign up, btw, nothing special about me, go to courtserve.net and follow your nose) but the case is still just listed as "Order made pursuant to Rule 49". I fear this means we can't ask to spectate; it wouldn't surprise me, though IANAL, if it is also why you haven't had a reply, as perhaps the court clerk isn't allowed even to confirm that it exists.

That being so it will be surprising to me if Tribunal Tweets actually get to report. Is anyone from TT reading and can you comment?

I'd love to be wrong - four weeks of Jane Russell and Naomi Cunningham in a courtroom together would be very good summer entertainment, quite apart from the open justice reasons for wanting to be able to watch the case.

Is it worth trying to ask Elspeth via her fundraising page?

I've gardened.
I hope it can be reported on/ viewed, in the interests of transparency and fairness

I don't immediately see that the gardening page gives a way to contact her?