Public servant sued for saying sex is binary

[lochmaree]

New case on crowd justice - Public servant sued for saying sex is binary

🍅

Makes a change from carrots.

This is beyond chilling. I note in Andreas' Crowdjustice statement he says the new claim uses the same wording as the previous one in different agency of Defra. I just checked and there are 34 Defra agencies to get through.
I also noted that Andreas had insurance that covered the first claim. I wonder if legal extension on house insurance is sufficient. Unions certainly aren't.

there are 34 Defra agencies to get through

If finding a complainant in each one is the new strategy, I'm ignorant of the law so don't know if there's anyway of establishing a single hearing for all of these? Otherwise, the costs for 34 actions can easily approach a million and the 'complainants' can continue to withdraw virtually on the day.

329 pledges now. I hope that this and the other crowdfunder will kill off any hope of similar cases succeeding - and that the people responsible for bringing these cases will be subject to disciplinary action for their bullying once the cases are thrown out.

Is there any framework for bringing disciplinary action for that in the CS?

I'm conflicted about this in the absence of well-defined criteria. It would be yet another wretched workplace problem if people faced disciplinary action for complaining about bullying (say) and HR couldn't find enough people who were willing to speak up about it. It feels potentially double-edged, much as this feels like an abuse of process by the complainants.

@StickItInTheFamilyAlbum

But bullying is bad in itself and should be a disciplinary matter. The issue would be finding evidence. Expressing gender critical or sex realist views is not bad per se - according to the current law - and should not be a disciplinary matter.
Making vexatious claims against a colleague for lawful behaviour is harassment or bullying.

Having said that, I do agree about clear and well-defined criteria.

9,937 seeds.

I suspect that this case won't go to court they will end up folding which is the trend.

However, we will keep growing gardens as long as they are needed. Till they learn that women are real.

The process really is the punishment. To the point the complainant has cut and paste the complaint from another case and applied it here.

Andreas’ management is a disgrace to let it get to this point

Stickitinthefamilyalbum

Just to expand on that, I completely understand and agree with what you are saying we need to guard against - people should have access to the law and losing a tribunal case should not in itself be a disciplinary matter. I meant that there should only be disciplinary action for bringing a case which is thrown out because there is in fact no cause of action and the complainant or their solicitor should have known.

In a case like this, assuming it has been correctly summarised, the complainant is not alleging harassment or bullying by the respondent. The claimant is in effect saying that AM and SEEN members should be prevented from, and punished for, expressing beliefs which the courts have already decided are WORIADS.

One thing I'm not clear about, and maybe someone who has knowledge of CS processes could clarify:

Does the complainant in this type of case need to have exhausted internal complaint procedures and potential remedies before they are in a position to take this step? If not, then why not? Surely a tribunal should require those steps to have been taken? And if those steps have been taken, presumably the claimant has not succeeded in using internal processes and rules to enforce what they want, which must diminish their chance of success at tribunal?

How dare these TRA bullies keep wasting taxpayer funded time? Someone should calculate the hours already spent indulging these fragile ego overescalated complaints and costs to the taxpayer let alone the personal impact on the people being hounded.

Are the civil service HR advisers and bosses so legally illiterate that they will neglect their duty of care to their own staff in favour of these hurt feelz and indulging vexatious complaints? This is revealing a huge professional awareness problem that really needs to be tackled. Could SEEN issue a guide to employers of what to do in these situations, watertight and pro bono legally advised?

Excellent point. I'd be interested to find out, too.

Likewise! 🥕

Wonder if the tax payers alliance would be interested in this kind of financial waste? The papers love quoting them on frivolous gov't spends.

I feel that Andrea's isn't really the target, or rather he is but it's not just him. He obviously, like other GC cases, being made an example of to deter other people from speaking out, they're also using him to target the SEEN networks but i think it's us too they're after. All these Crowdfunders, all these battles that have been fought and now have to be refought. It's hard not to think that they'll be another case after this, then another. It's hard not to feel a little demoralised which is probably partly their intent.

Anyway, fuck 'em. I'll throw in a few sprouts.

I'd assume that the claimant has already tried internal processes and been told that their employer will not act as gender critical views are legally protected. Chances are it will never come to court or if it does will be promptly thrown out. If the claimant has not been through internal processes they will be told to do so.

"Making vexatious claims against a colleague for lawful behaviour is harassment or bullying." Exactly. There will be internal processes that should be followed and Andreas could start that now so that it can be referred to in court if the claimant is fool enough to go there.

The claimant is entitled to believe in gender ideology but their expression of that believe to bully others is not legally protected.

Bullying or harassing others isn't acceptable in any context - whatever your beliefs, and whether they are protected beliefs or not.
Not that it's been decided that gender ideology is WORIADS, though.

But I would say that this is the claimant bullying or harassing on the basis of AM's beliefs. The reason for the bullying is the claimant's beliefs.

lcakethereforeIam · Yesterday 17:34
I feel that Andrea's isn't really the target, or rather he is but it's not just him. He obviously, like other GC cases, being made an example of to deter other people from speaking out, they're also using him to target the SEEN networks but i think it's us too they're after. All these Crowdfunders, all these battles that have been fought and now have to be refought. It's hard not to think that they'll be another case after this, then another. It's hard not to feel a little demoralised which is probably partly their intent.
You are so right.

Anyone feeling demoralised take a look at the thread about James Esses. A garden that has bloomed beautifully.

lots of gardening going on. 🌼

Yes, it's great to see that many people are willing to financially support him.

I thought gender critical views were protected after the Forstater case. Must have misunderstood this.

Nope, you're completely right!

What makes this quite unusual is that it's one colleague suing another colleague. I didn't even know that was possible. (Most of the other cases have involved gender-critical employees taking their employer to tribunal for discrimination eg Lizzy Pitt, Rachel Meade etc).

I'd be interested to know what kind of lawyer would take on a case like this, given the low chance of success. Unless, of course, there's solid evidence that Mueller has been harassing his colleague, which seems unlikely - the incidents cited in Mueller's CrowdJustice post are all protected under the Equality Act, as shown by Forstater.

But probably the aim is not to have a successful legal case, but simply to cause distress and anxiety to Andreas Mueller.

Ah ty for that. Rather scary.

I've seen this and he is rightfully being sued. Although I'm not sure if sued is the right terminology, it started with an internal grievance and escalated. Andreas crossed the boundary and in my department, he'd be on thin ice. He should've thought more about being political in an apolitical environment.