GC Employment tribunal cases have an incredible 78% success rate

[fromorbit]

Prof Jo Phoenix has been doing the sums:

Employment tribunals involving secular gender critical claimants and including full admissions of liability as wins.

12 wins (admission of liability + claims upheld @ ET/EAT)
2 settled by agreement
2 ongoing appeals
2 unsuccessful
1 dismissed at preliminary hearing stage (ruled out of time and/or claimant did not have employment status)

If we include County Court and First Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Division)

16 wins
2 settled
2 ongoing appeals
2 unsuccessful
1 dismissed

Final tally (so far): 18/23 wins (of cases we know about).

78% success rate.

The context for these GC discrimination belief wins? last 15 years shows less than 5% belief discrimination claims win at hearing & circa 15-20% are unsuccessful at hearing.

But we are winning at a rate of 78% and 3% unsuccessful.

https://x.com/JoPhoenix1/status/1833489501471043829

Mumsnet gardeners are getting AMAZING results. We are winning and we are going to keep winning till everyone admits biological sex exists and it is fine to say it if you are secular.

It isn't just the gardeners. Everyone who comes on Mumsnet or reads it {that includes the TA trolls - Waves thanks guys!] has helped in these wins by helping boost the campaigns and spreading the word. Lots more winning to come.

The problem is that what will happen now is that they will still get rid of GC women but not be so blatant about it.

Where does the money come from in public, private and third sector organisations to pay the legal costs and the settlements in the cases they lose?

Insurance.

HR bods and CEOs, however committed to the ideology they are, are not paying for this out of their own pockets.

The tipping point will only come when the weight of case law is such that insurers and their lawyers say to organisations 'you've got less than a 50% chance on this, if you want to pursue it, you're on your own'. Only then will organisations start to change their behaviour.

A lot of the time we are not dealing with subtle people. They will wreck organisations over this. We have seen this.

Ruth Birchall and I analyzed the GC judgements and have written it up here:

https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/118472/

Hope you enjoy

Jo

Thank you so much for doing this Jo, its invaluable.
In what circumstances do you advise using it ?

This consultation is really crucial in the circumstances to protect GC barristers.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5166997-female-barristers-rebel-against-crackdown-on-unfashionable-views-amid-trans-tensions

Its open to the public.

But part of the power is precisely about the show trial. Simply because there's a huge number of people who don't really believe in this. The more questions the more it becomes harder to control the narrative and squeeze non activists out of decision making.

Fear is the big fear here.

Without making a song and dance about getting rid of people the fear disappears

Not sure really. We did not write it as advice for HR. I suppose we wrote it to give to ppl who may not realise what these judgements mean or why they are important - perhaps ppl who are interested but not paid attention.

I'm hoping people will let me know how they find it useful (or not). Maybe send to your MP?

Jo

Perhaps to the CEO of John Lewis Nish Kankiwala for starters.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/resignation-letter-from-a-john-lewis

Send it to Sam Fowles, he's enjoying cherry picking ones that suit his agenda

https://x.com/samfowles/status/1835298409638494285?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2024/09/15/the-summer-that-exposed-the-anti-trans-movement/

...The GC movement has claimed a degree of legitimacy based on previous legal successes, notably the case of Forstater v CGD Europepe, in which GC beliefs were declared “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Some seem to have interpreted this as a licence to persecute trans people. This summer three separate courts gave clear statements to the contrary. The Employment Tribunal upheld the sacking of teacher Kevin Listerer after he equated being transgender (as one of his students was) with having a mental illness. The High Court upheld an order banning Joshua Sutcliffe from teachingng children after he repeatedly misgendered a child in his care. In Australia, the Federal Court prohibited a dating app from discriminating against trans womenen. The message from the courts is clear: GC beliefs are worthy of respect, but GCs must also respect trans people....

Some seem to have interpreted this as a licence to persecute trans people.

Does anyone believe that apart from partial legal commentators such as RMW and SF and TRAs such as FW and IW?

Is SF hoping for another opportunity to appear on GBNews' Free Speech Nation?

@JoPhoenix could you link a public version of your written up pdf? Want to share it but it's restricted to Uni of Reading.

It will be up tomorrow. Just correcting a few typos overnight! Apologies. The typos were only spotted after UoR put it up. One was a fairly colossal one in which we defined GC beliefs as believing that you can change sex!!!!!

Thank you! Much appreciated

Here it is - corrected. It will be finally published tomorrow via University of Reading. You can even google Birchall and Phoenix Don't Get Caught Out and you will be able to straight to UoR repository.

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/dont-get-caught-out

The pie chart below comes from section 3.

Thank you Jo! What a brilliant resource.

It makes me laugh that the TRA takeaway from all these cases is that "this doesn't mean that TERFs can bully and harass trans people" rather than "perhaps we should stop bullying and harassing TERFs".

It's excellent @JoPhoenix thank you and your colleague for doing this. I see on Twitter you did indeed send it to Sam Fowles as well, well done 👏

Even though it's not written specifically for them, I think a lot of HR departments would greatly benefit from reading through the doc and having a long hard think about the implications. The HR dept at my work have deliberately "othered" me (as in, data collection gives me the choice of gender ID: male/female/other) and have written an HR policy that doesn't acknowledge my protected characteristic (sex - they have decided gender would be better). To me, this makes it a dominant gender affirmative workplace culture and as such the doc is very relevant to them.

Thanks Jo and Ruth for creating it.