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’.

Mmm, tricky, hadn't thought about the fact that they are intervenors. Can't see them, or anyone, bringing an action to shut down trans networks, however appealing that might be in an if-this-then-that setting. Surely, though, if the employer does try to shut them down, then they can bring a case against the employer?

If the employer takes action and shuts down SEEN as a result of this case then employees can pursue an action against the employer. I imagine. It’s all very messy.

You have a point though that SEEN has no right of appeal.

From TT:

Amend not attend (auto correct)
HH - yes I think MLF is right and I need to do that. With that background, liability was expressly pleaded, there has been a number of amendments to pleading since then, there was an amended part of claim provided in June 2024, had 2 crucial

changes. 1st change was that indiv Rs, Mueller and Wrigley were removed as respondents. In the intro to the amendment that stated it reflected withdrawal of the claim against those two respondents. The 2nd change was that it expanded on the allegations of conduct against those

former Rs. The C contends that 1st R & 2nd R are liable for conduct of former 3rd and 4th Rs. Now that para was redlined - struck through. It was a composite paragraph that referred to 3rd and 4th Rs and the liability of of 1st and 2nd Rs. It was an over deletion not a

Taking the reasoning a step further, we say the respondents wouldn't appeal, but suppose the claimant won this case so they were instructed to shut down SEEN, but they could see, on the basis of advice, that if they did that, SEEN's members would bring an action against them and they'd lose. Conceivably that would change their minds in favour of appealing?

From TT:

withdrawal of those claims. It makes no sense to withdraw individual claims against AM, EW, include additional allegations against them and then abandon the liability question of 1st and 2nd Rs. When you look at this application, please look at this in context, not an

or withdrawal of that basis of liability. I do accept the confusion that has been generated by that earlier deletion of the entire paragraph. I hope you can see how and why that has happened. Because it was a mixed para, the deletion of it is consistent with no claims against

AM and EW but not abandonment of corporate liability. Equally there hasn't been a strike out. My primary position - this was an over deletion and the balance of prejudice favours the C, it's not simply sufficient for Rs to plead prejudice where none exists. That is the situation

in this case.
J - I think, may I call her Elspeth, may I ask what you are doing, are you using your phone to record
EW - I'm not recording
J - not making any accusation just want to be clear what's happening, no recording
NC - EW is a government lawyer, I'm sure she's aware of

that.
J - yes thank you just reminded
HH - back to question of prejudice, Rs have taken no issue with section 109.1 liability, addition of 109.2 involves same acts, same network, same moderation, and witnesses have completely covered this. Even if prejudice does exist, it

From TT:

could be dealt with by additional questions in chief. We are dealing with whether the Rs are responsible for AM, EW. There is no prejudice to Rs. However, there is significant prejudice to the C if these claims cannot be pursued. The balance of prejudice favours the C.

HH - dealing with points of Rs in objection, if acts are done within agent's authority, the principal is liable even if not aware and did not approve. In the recent authority from Court of Appeal, no exact legal definition of what is an agent,

but that the common law envisages that the agent was acting with the consent of the principal. We can see that was the case. EW and AM both post information as group owners, these things are obvious from the papers and the pleadings. Prejudice to the Rs is nonexistent.

@prh47bridge said the right to appeal would depend on exactly what status SEEN had, so possibly still some right of appeal? IANAL obviously.

'may I call her Elspeth'

WTF. Good on NC for reminding him EW is a GOVERNMENT LAWYER. An actual grown-up with a proper job. Not some little girl.

I'm getting very bad vibes off this judge.

There's lots of scope for the judge to be prejudiced in favour of GI and still reject the claimant's case, we should remember. A judgment that said, in effect, "it's a terrible shame that these bigoted women wanted to have this bigoted network, but on a free speech technicality we can't stop them", would be annoying, but still a win for our side.

what the judge ought to be saying is that the members of SEEN have rights to free - not compelled - speech. He's already implied he wont do that.

From TT:

AL - the C must plead their case and advance their case, it is not the job of the tribunal to correct an error of the parties seeking the application. It is not a concern of the tribunal or the parties. The C has made various amendments to pleading through a red line process

approved by a previous judge. The C went through exactly the same process with red line etc, the process that was taken for the direct discrim pleadings is very different from this application. The explanation that was given beggars belief. And we have no evidence from

a solicitor. It's not good enough for C to simply say we didn't mean that, if it was an error, it's still not a good answer. There were further amendments subsequent to that change, there has been discussion at more than one preliminary hearing, there has been so many

occasions for this error to be noted, it's astonishing that it has not be spotted until now. Consistently through the list of issues, a consistent line has been taken with respect to vicarious liability is only through section 9.1, employment. C sent updated combined lists of

on various dates. Following withdrawal against AM, EW, further lists of issues. All of those lists of issues make no reference to section 9.2. This is why I say even if it can be explained away by an error, there have been numerous opportunities over the years to correct it.

<personal comment - I can't quite follow this dry legal argument, but it seems like the Claimant was careless in amending their claim and now the parties are arguing on whether the mistakenly deleted claim remains part of the case or not.>

“Your honour, if you’re prepared to address the Claiamant as ‘she’, I’d like to be known as Your Watermelonship, please and thank you.”

😂

From TT:

The amendment has been proposed today, you have a letter from 10 June that mis-characterised it as an amendment to the list of issues, the list of issues has to reflect the claim. Timing in and of itself, leads into the prejudice point. It's been said against us that Rs cannot

blandly plead prejudice that does not exist. That's an astonishing claim to make. Agency is a distinct concept. The Rs have understood liability under 9.1 was at issue and that is how we have prepared our case. Details of relationship between R and arms length bodies would be

very important. The 2 individuals are not employed by DEFRA. More details would be needed to prove agency, it can't simply be corrected with a few supplemental questions. The Rs have not had the opportunity to consider the point and would have to deal with it on the hoof,

So is the judge compelling the language of the witness? Does this ever happen in any other circumstances apart from with pronouns? I actually think using they/them counterintuitively is more difficult than wrong sex pronouns.

From TT:

so to speak. The Rs witness statements deal with employment, the Intervenor's witness statement as well. It's said that AM was acting as agent. He's not been called as a witness, he's not a R. We still don't understand what C's case is in this regard. I don't intend to go

into the merits, relying on timing and prejudice. The formal announcement of DEFRA SEEN was announced in December 2023, the formal announcement of SEEN CS was made in the Cabinet Officer. Matters of content and moderation happened later. We say it's not blindingly obvious

that AM, EW are agents. There is a case to be said to that there is prejudice to Intervenor that the AM and EW are agents of DEFRA and RPA. The prejudice is outweighed by the technical, legal problems. The C has other options here. And if solicitors have made an error,

C can have recourse against them.
J - if it is right that AM EW were not employed by Rs, and they cannot rely on 9.2, there cannot be no direct liability. Whether this matters is for us.

AL - needs to look at the claim in its totality, if 9.1 doesn't assist, it might be a

From Dennis Kavanagh on X. This doesn't seem like the best start to this tribunal 🙁

https://nitter.net/i/status/2069733927837684125

My thoughts upon reading all this pronoun nonsense is how many, just how many, extremely misogynistic judges who secretly think women - particularly not middle or lower class women (who should obviously all be servants to men, on the man's whim) - shouldn't have any rights, to freedom of speech or anything else. Answers on a postcard.

From TT:

problem. The whole claim however does not rest or fall on that. The Tribunal should not look at this as all or nothing, if the C can't take forward those claims it may be a matter of negligence
J - did the Rs ask the C to explain their contention of vicarious liability,

AL - reads out page numbers, invited to explain how relevant section 9 applies. It's an obvious opportunity for C to explain how this might apply.
J - let me have a look.
<reading>
AL - these are amended grounds of resistance
<it's section 109 being discussed>

AL - the Rs are responding to 109.1, employment and now it goes against the grain to say there is prejudice.
J - do you have anything to say NC
NC - we see a real benefit is seeing all aspects of C's claims being determined in full, our stance remains neutral
J - the Rs might

I can't quite believe that the judge is compelling women to lie in court. But it is true. It's all a bit 1984.

And then again, some judges are letting off rapists, so the anti-woman bias seems to be throughout the judiciary with some honourable exceptions.

From TT:

have an interest in 109.2 being explored
AL - that's not a submission I would take forward.
HH - a brief reply, on the question of prejudice, tribunals are invited to focus on the practical consequences of an application, focusing on reality, whether witnesses remember, have

records etc about the proposed amendments. The Rs had anticipated the issue that the pleading come first, and you can't simply take the list of issues, the issue of prejudice couldn't have been any surprise. He stated that more detailed evidence as to agency cannot be discounted

If that is the height of the objection on prejudice, it falls short. My other point,
J - what is the basis, in it's original form it simply asserts and there is no pleading of the basis on which agency is argued
HH - the factual basis is set out.
J - but it isn't it doesn't set

out the connection to agency
HH - its not clearly x-ref'd
J - there has to be some specific assertions about how agency applies
HH - it would not be uncommon for unwanted conduct to have the proscribed effect, we would invite the Tribunal to assume that an agency relationship

"unusual and novel" is quite damning in lawyer speak.

From TT:

exists. Further, my instructing solicitors strongly resist that this was anything but an error and the junior solicitor would be prepared to give further evidence.
J - we need to consider our decision. But if we were to allow it, what are the consequences for your case

J - please talk to each other. Don't read anything into that.
AL - not reading anything in to that, disagree with how my submissions were characterised by Cs, I'm now trying to answer the question of how this amendment will impact our case and this hearing.
J - can I ask each

of you to consider what you need, do you understand the question.
J - it's 1 o'clock, we'll adjourn until 2 pm, and we'll ask you to address us on that point.
Court rises.
End of morning session part 2.

If anyone is wondering, section 109 is the bit of the EA2010 that makes employers liable for the results of actions by their employees, and agents for their principals. The arguing seems to be that the claimants’ solicitors mistakenly deleted part of their claim that made it clear on what basis the government departments are to be held responsible for the SEEN post.

I haven’t followed the full details, but I get the idea that the Government is trying to leverage a solicitors error to reduce the scope of what the court can hear and decide.

NC said she doesn’t really care: SEEN are keen to argue the whole thing.

Also, says the government, since ET claims are primarily about money, if the claimants can’t make the claim they wanted because of their own solicitor’s error, they can sue them (sue their solicitors) to make up for any money they didn’t get at the tribunal.

The claimants would be particularly averse to this since it’s not really about money for them.