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’.

Bloody hell - 30 donors when OP first posted, two hours later over 400!

Women are amazing aren't we?

How had this not been thrown out for being vexatious/having no reasonable prospect of success?

Done. Should be on a roll now, after the recent cases.

Are the members of SEEN on this thread Civil Service? the senior people don't have our backs, and the unions are totally captured. It's a hostile environment for sure.

Donated also!

Surely the government will have a vested interest in this claim NOT being successful. They know people are sick of being called bigots for reasonable views about sex and gender.

Still going up at speed

I wish that I understood more about ETs. It seems like the March 24 hearing is the first occasion that it can be adjudicated as to whether part of it is vexatious can be thrown out.

I trust the NGO employer and government department will be putting up a defence and likewise looking to have this triaged out (so to speak) for failing to meet reasonable grounds to continue.

This feels like the inverse process of what Allison, Sonia, Maya, Jo, Rachel et al have been through. They needed a Preliminary Hearing to be able to proceed. I should think EDW is hoping that there won't be permission to continue against her and she will be removed from the action.

Did RMW try to get Stonewall removed from Allison's action?

Thank you Elspeth and the other members of SEEN.

For those asking about how it can go to an ET. As I understand it there are 3 defendants:

• Direct employer, which is an arms length body (ALB), so a standard employment claim.

• Government department, which is probably the “parent” department to the ALB. There will be a relationship with the ALB which should be defined. In employment terms they may be legally be tied together. A good example is a Civil Servant working for NS&I (ALB) including HM Treasury (parent Department) in an employment claim. I expect part of the defence will be to try and limit the claim to the ALB.

• Chair of SEEN = SEEN is a cross government network group approved by the Cabinet Office. The Chair as a role, is therefore a cross government role, so again it is an employment claim. The Chair will also have a day job which will see them employed by an ALB or Department which is not relevant to their work for SEEN nor this claim.

Trying to explain the relationships between ALBs, Departments and Cross Government Networks would require a book.

Can anyone explain what SEEN is? I’m confused by the funding page’s explanation.

It seems clear that EDW is a civil service lawyer. But is SEEN the ‘arms length’ department/agency she’s employed by, or is it a voluntary group for civil servants to pursue GC aims, but not actually a civil service function?

It says “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.” I find it difficult to unpick the bold bit.

What I also don’t understand is how EDW can be the subject of an action in the ET if she’s not the employer. I’ve never heard of one employee taking another employee to an ET - but I’m no expert.

Absolutely appalling for Elspeth and potentially all members of SEEN. And all women everywhere. Have donated.

Thank you Elspeth, I've also donated.

Member of SEEN and saw the email about this, chilling to see the detail.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying SEEN is a cross government network.

You can name an employee in an ET. Maya named Masood Ahmed as well as her employers.

500 people have donated and it's gone over £12,000

It's in the Crowdjustice page that EDW is being personally sued and at the same time her employer is being taken to tribunal:

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.

Here is a link to a list of current civil service staff networks:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-staff-networks

SEEN is just one of many, for all kinds of different interest groups.

£12,760 from 534 pledges. That says a lot.

Thank you.

But is SEEN a body corporate, perhaps a statutory corporation or government body or part of one? If it is, presumably the corporate body would need to be the defendant.

If it isn’t, is EDW being sued as a representative defendant of an unincorporated body?

If SEEN has no articles of association or other charter - like a book club (sorry for the low rent example: I’m just trying to understand) and isn’t an association of any sort, how can anyone part of it be sued in the ET?

Apologies for stupid questions, am just baffled.

I haven't looked through all the comments, but the highest single amount seems to be £100, lots of £5 and £10. It shows how many people are unhappy.

Some people believe that we all have a gender (sometimes ‘gender identity’) separate from our biological sex; that sex is a spectrum, and that biological sex is an idea that first emerged with white European colonisation. Such beliefs are protected by law.

Is this correct? Does anyone know where / when was it established that these beliefs are protected in law?

Nice to see lots of men’s names in the comments too.

I hope Elspeth is heartened by the fact that it's over £13,000 and nearly 550 people donated

Are any media outlets reporting on this?

Donated and yes that's a mighty fine garden that is growing well.

Reading what she has written (which I suspect the TRA didn't but the ET will) this looks like the least hateful network you could imagine

I can't remember their name, but there's a v good barrister signed up for the GC side. Sorry,not trying to be vague, I just have a shit memory!