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’.

A reference to Mae West is certainly unexpected here and potentially out of place, but ...
your post reminded me of an exchange she had with the judge at her trial for 'obscenity' in 1927:
"Are you trying to show contempt for this court?"
"On the contrary, your Honor, I was doin’ my best to conceal it."

@MarieDeGournay 😅😅😅

We're back!

From TT:

J This is our unanimous decision on C application to amend claim. C applies to inc allegation that Rs are liable under section 109 2 for actions of EW and AM - actions done as agents for R. Application R liable was first made in 2023. Remains a boiler plate contention

J Removal of original Rs in 2024 and tribunal gave leave to amend. Para 58 removed entirely - HH says was an error. Thereafter draft list of issues went through amendments and error not realised. therefore no argument in pleading or list that section 109 still relied on

<NC inadvertently interrupts while trying to fix a tech issue>

From TT:

J C asked to amend. HH appreciated also need to amend claim to include sec 109, but list of issues is parasitic upon particulars of claim.
[NC and others dealing with tech]
NC Apologies. Sorry to interrupt you Judge. Was trying to do this discreetly.
J That didn't work (!)

J How tribunal deals with requests to amend claim. Balance of prejudice - Tribunal should take realistic and real world approach as to what happens if amendment allowed or not. Tribunal don't accept HH view that Rs should have realised re section 109 that it had bee removed.

J tribunal doesn't consider that Rs are being opportunistic.
Application to amend has been made extremely late. Allegation isn't particularised - this needs to be done and further docs/witness statements would be needed. Also here, arms'-length bodies involved.

J If granted, proceedings would have to be delayed,
Tribunal concludes unanimously in service of justice. that application to amend claim is refused. This is final decision. Reasons will be fully set out.

I wonder if the judge unwittingly fell into the trap of requiring the witness to use gender neutral language as well as NC. It's difficult to tell from TT's written account how considered his response to NC's request for clarification was. Perhaps at a suitable juncture @MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving you could give us your impression?

From TT:

J Nature of allegations in this case mean best to deal with this as a liability hearing.
[counsel agree]
J No more to be said about that, then. Would be helpful if we could have revised agreed list of issues. Don't need a shortened version.
NC I prepared the shorter list

J no offence
NC none taken! Not the length or formulation of doc which will cause difficulty if we stick with the long version but the numbering. [gives eg]
J I have your point. When I was preparing this I renumbered the list of issues completely and then realised

<personal note - NC's tweet over the weekend about document numbering suddenly makes sense>

NC is the Queen of the Bundle!

.

From TT:

that would cause complete chaos.
AL Appreciated it was done to help not hinder.
J Can I suggest we have amended list of issues and an abridged list of issues so we can work with those henceforth.
HH I'm happy to lead on this if it will assist.

HH Re specific allegations made against EW and Muller. C will take a view on that and revert to tribunal.
HH Depending on option chosen, you (judge) have indicated within list of issues is failure to moderate certain behaviours later on.
J I didn't say moderate but that is

part of what I was thinking. Rs failed to act re posts that were made, and that is still part of allegations
HH Yes
J Is there any issues still between parties re docs.
HH You've seen applications. We say all docs are relevant for X exam. Re Intervenors application -

HH I am aware of time. To make an application of such length and WSs exchanged late in the day [early June]
AL Fifteen day case and exhanging WSs three weeks today
HH 900 pages. We spend more time on docs than warranted. Re Intervenors statements, the issues re these

From TT:

additional docs, can the Intervenor set out what docs are relevant to?
J We won't read a doc unless referred to it in evidence. If not relevant we won't be reading them.
HH Intervenor is saying wants to int on almost everything. If I feel docs aren't relevant to issues

HH I can object then?
J Don't know if it would help. I dread prospect of having to look at 1000+ pages of docs at this stage. We are here to hear and decide on evidence. Additional docs have been provided late, but experience shows v few tend to get referred to in the end.

J Prefer to decide as we go if each doc is to be relied on rather than read a lot tomorrow.
HH That would be sensible, but my caveat is that would be helpful for intervenor to let us know by tomorrow to which issues these docs are relevant.

This is the usual farce of documents disclosed late so that they can't be properly used, isn't it? Sigh. [ETA the annoying part being what sounds like the usual attempt to make this Naomi's fault, somehow.]

From TT:

HH This is about C and claim for discrimination. Not to be dismissive but this isn't the SEEN show. I'm sure judge you would stop us being taken down rabbit holes.
AL We can address whether docs are germane as and when arises. Intervenors docs - many appear in main bundle anyway

AL Caution against tribunal needing to read all.
J Could we work together to identify duplication
A: I've id'd these and happy to copy to NC etc
NC Happy re this.
J Anything else, NC, to say
NC In fairness to my instructions solicitor should set record straight. Read c

parties should cooperate. The Intervenors doc which In wanted inc in bundle were provided in March. Not new docs suddenly dumped on parties. Parties agreed between selves which Int docs should include and rather high-handedly compiled the bundle and now complains about a large

NC bundle newly dumped. My instructing sol had to sort all this out - some duplication and we can work on this. Not expecting you to plough through int doc and read anything we're not relying on or referring to. HH wants us to say which part the docs refer to, but

<personal note - looking at the clock we're not going to start hearing evidence today are we?>

I think this time it's Naomi presenting a lot of documents - but saying not at the last minute?

From TT:

those qs should have been asked in March/April/May if they were following Judge Aston's requests. Not fair to give homework to int.
J Not trying to apportion blame. Often tribunal find themselves in position shouldn't be in. If C is to be taken to any of these docs then that

can be raised then.
J Scope of Intervenors involvement.
NC Do you have mini bundle sent to tribunal this morning by Int??
J I think so. So many bundles here.
NC 31 page bundle if that helps. Sent by email.
J If my colleagues don't have it do we need it.

As for how considered the reply on pronouns - they did take a break to consider, during which you would have expected the judge to show the bench book to the other 2 members of tribunal.

SEEN's solicitor sent over their documentation to the Claimant and Respondent's solicitors in March. The C&R legal teams then agreed between them which ones should be included in the bundle, without any reference back to SEEN as to why they wanted them included. SEEN (ie NC) realised this when they saw the bundle and submitted them again. C's legal team is framing this as a "dumping of new documents", and Naomi is having none of it and is pointing back to an earlier ruling where a different EJ instructed all parties to cooperate and agree on the bundle.

Unclear. The latest update on the gardening site said "There has been such a deluge of last minute disclosures to work through, this really helps to cover all that extra time this will take." but I'm finding this hard to follow. (ETA ah, but xpost with @MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving who [is there and?] understands it much better!)

From TT:

NC Short bits - I can read them out.
AL Was asked by Tribunal Tweets to speak more loudly. But turns out I don't have a microphone.
J We'll see what we can do by tomorrow morning [to get him his own mike]
NC First doc I want to take you to. You have asked me to speak first.

NC My position is nothing has been decided c level of int's participation. If the parties want to limit participation that's for them. I am not asking tribunal to do so.
NC This is an eg of what we have seen re docs. Judge Aston says there are likely to be issues arising

NC that SEEN won't have any interest in and expect parties to cooperate re what is in Int's interests. That didn't happen. It didn't confer on parties aside from Int what issues Int is allowed to be in involved in or to take Int's silence as consent.

Both things could have happened - Naomi sent a lot of documents and wasnt consulted on what went in the bundle. Claimant and/or respondent then let Naomi see what they have stitched up but last minute.

From TT:

NC [to docs] Case management in PQ case - the linked case that was withdrawn. Telling indication of parties attitude to Int - parties agreed Int allowed to participate in PQ's final hearing, and Tribunal orders not be consent (not agreed by parties). Parties had to be directed

give Int list of issues and told c variations of case management orders, etc. All of those - or at least one - was resisted by the parties. Parties' non-cooperative approach to the Int, whose existential involvement in proceedings should be obvious to them.

NC All 48 issues apart from
J [making note] never clearly identified what Int participating in
NC This is indication to tribunal what issues Int not interested in. No 4 - timescale; 5 - special leave (R and parties not completely up to date with our position on this);

What a shambles, I don't know why I am surprised, these tribunals never run smoothly or on time.

From TT:

NC 44 and 45 gone anyway. And time limits - we are content for C's claims to be resolved on merits.
J Everything else
NC Yes.
NC [to docs] Correspondence in mini bundle in the two related cases. I asked for information, I was told was to remain between the parties.

NC [reads] I was asking for list of issues in the case and parties were not prepared to supply them for me. I find that incomprehensible and not in spirit of cooperation asked for by the judge.
NC [re PQ's case] Similar - no indications on draft list of issues that parties think

we should be interested in. Am told by my solicitor that parties emailed tribunal to say which issues relevant to intervenor. That was first time we were aware of what parties thought we should be interested in.
J I assumed you were included in that
NC No. Never decided in

<personal note - SEEN as intervenors have been cut out of a lot of the case management discussions between C&R and NC is not happy about it>

From TT:

NC consultation. My instructing solicitor sent back list of issues, incorporating Muller's comments. He still hadn't been asked to comment on issues parties said Int should be interested in. These weren't drawn to Int's attention or Int asked if agreed.

NC It's not open to the parties to give directions as to what is to be taken as assent by Int or what Int is to be part of.
J [to HH] Your response?
J Not too bothered about cooperation - want to get on.
HH [difficult to hear] I question relevance of going into grievance

HH in detail. If X exam strays into matters outside legitimate interest I propose to raise this with you, judge. Description not accepted.
AL In main bundle reference to Sept 2024 hearing - judge decided Int couldn't be present for majority of hearing cos not party to

AL proceedings. Hear what NC said but not always that clear - when criticism made of me in bundle - it was reasonable for me to raise and NC is criticising me for email which she didn't say was going to put before tribunal. That courtesy should have been extended.

<it's all getting a bit petty now>

I wonder at what point Jane Russell was replaced - because that sounds like something she'd do.

From TT:

AL [refers to details in docs] Surprising for NC to criticise other parties here.
J We'll note that NC identifies what they don't wish to participate in and will proceed on that basis. What we are concerned with in this case are allegations of unlawful treatment by the R

<judge isn't interested in playground tittle tattle, reminding legal teams what they are there for>

TT seem to have a pause in posting but hearing has ended for the day and evidence will start tomorrow morning, presumably 10am.