Employment tribunal UCU vs Adult Human Female makers lost?

[alsoFanOfNaomi]

According to UCU, the case has been comprehensively decided in favour of UCU:
https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/14047/Employment-Tribunal-rejects-claims-University-and-College-Union-discriminated-against-members-on-grounds-of-their-gender-critical-beliefs
However, I can't find anything confirming this; in particular, the judgement does not yet seem to be out at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions unless I'm missing it.

Anyone know more? Disappointing, if so, though I think we did wonder about whether the legal basis (what exactly constitutes harrassment/discrimination from one's union?) would fly.

Well if the film must be shown in the future we now know people are legally permitted to protest it.

I've skim-read the judgment now. I have no idea about the legal merits of the case (probably quite complicated given the trade union focus?) but it's a TERRIBLE judgment. Just utterly incoherent.

I've now also had a quick read. IANAL but omg what a pig's breakfast. I know I'm biased in thinking that, but I really hope they'll be able to appeal.

I don’t think The right to legally protest was at issue, but even if I am wrong and it was, this is a first tier tribunal isn’t it?

Huh. Did we know EJ Laidler was about to retire? I wonder whether the fact that the lead judge retired a month before the judgement was issued accounts for the pig's breakfastness - could it have been written, or at least finalised, by the sidekicks? It is the same person I assume?

www.judiciary.uk/appointments-and-retirements/employment-judge-retirement-laidler/

The Times report, with a few words about the reasoning:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/academics-lose-discrimination-claim-over-trans-film-ztmmb2zwc

https://archive.ph/oor0F

And the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/10/academics-who-sued-union-after-being-called-transphobic-lose-tribunal-case

https://archive.ph/hBWVp

Standing by to garden. FWS and Forstater had to appeal to get to a non-captured judicial level, so let's have at it.

I think employment judges all write their own judgments. But maybe the fact that the judge had retired by the time he finalised it meant that he simply wasn't that bothered about doing a good job.

At the same time I do wonder, from the Times article, whether the claim is strong enough to get to appeal and win. Maya clearly didn't have her contract renewed because of he GC beliefs. But I couldn't see that the claimants in this case had suffered personally from harassment or discrimination. Admittedly it's hard to judge the strength of the arguments because the judgment is such a mess.

*she

They didn't get to present their work, because of the over-the-top protest fostered by their union; I would hope that that was a detriment. We'll see, I suppose.

I am disappointed at this judgment like most but I do wish we could avoid falling into the trap of maligning the judges. This is exactly the tactic deployed by TRA against the SC judges. The Times article does say that the claimants didn't offer sufficient evidence and the judges didn't want this to be a case about the merits of the gender argument. Let's start from a position of assuming our judges acted in good faith and competently.

Have you read the judgment? I am totally neutral on the actual decision and agree it's quite possible that the claimants' case wasn't strong enough. But gosh it is a badly and confusingly written judgment (and I've read many judgments in my time).

I don't think anyone has maligned the judge, have we? Two of us have called the judgement incoherent (I used a more colourful synonym) and I acknowledged my bias in saying that. I stand by it, though - go and read it! In fact, in suggesting that perhaps the fact that the judgement is incoherent suggests that it wasn't written by the judge herself, I was complimenting her...

Moreover, I was at the tribunal, virtually, and already had some direct knowledge of the events. Suffice it to say that I know a lot more about what happened and about the evidence presented than is in the newspaper articles. I don't know so much about where this puts the situation in law, but I haven't claimed to.

I've not read the judgment (yet) so I can't pass comment on how well or otherwise it's been written. The outcome is disappointing (I was an observer and felt they had a decent case but IANAL) and I hope it's found that there are grounds for appeal at least on some parts. But I completely agree with @WorriedMutha, let's play the ball not the man. If the judgment is badly written then that can form part of any appeal, but implying that the EJ had done a shit job because they were retiring anyway is TRA playbook stuff.

OK, I have been misinterpreted and I'm sorry if I was unclear. I in no way meant to suggest "that the EJ had done a shit job because they were retiring anyway". I was rather wondering whether the EJ had not had the opportunity to put together a coherent judgement, because she was retiring (and I don't know whether the retirement was long-planned or sudden - if there was, for example, a health reason for an unplanned retirement, this goes double).

But as for "the judge didn't want this to be a case about the merits of the gender argument" nothing could be further from the truth. One quote (Maya draws attention to this on twitter, do read her thread
https://x.com/MForstater/status/1932451438153929088

172. The tribunal has considered the guidance given by the EAT in Higgs at paragraph 94, although not all of that is relevant as this is not an employment case. As was stated at paragraph 94(2) the freedom to manifest a belief is ‘qualified’. The right will be protected but not where ‘the law permits the limitation or restriction of such manifestation or expression to the extent necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. As the EAT stated where limitation of the right is objectively justified that is not ‘because of or relating to’ the exercise of the right but ‘by reason of the objectionable manner of the manifestation or expression’. The Respondent was objectively justified in considering that the way the Film was being marketed by Eventbrite interfered with the rights of its trans members. Others including SPN, Edinburgh University Student Association and PrideSoc also held that view.

It is not stated (at least not anywhere near this paragraph) what "rights of its trans members" could possibly have been being infringed. And so it goes on.

I'm a bit confused about how this was an employment tribunal - does the UCU count as employer in this circumstance? I would have thought it was a civil case (UCU provides a service to the two academics who made the film), or do they work for UCU as well (I know union reps get time to work for the union as well as to do their real job).

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunals

You can make a claim to an employment tribunal if you think someone has treated you unlawfully, such as your employer, a potential employer or a trade union.

Thanks @alsoFanOfNaomi

Only skimmed the judgement, but I see a lot of reference to Higgs. I assume this is Karen Higgs and therefore the judgement was overturned on appeal. IANAL but I imagine that will feed into whether an appeal is worthwhile in this case.

Where can I find a copy of the judgment please?

It’s Kristie Higgs, and it went to the Court of Appeal, Farmors School have just been refused leave to take it up to the Supreme Court.

So yes I think it is relevant and an appeal might be possible.

Found it!

What a strange document. But I suppose the Edinburgh's tiny and interconnected civic society couldn't tolerate the judge coming to an alternative conclusion. Same as for FWS. So their loss here doesn't mean they are wrong..

With the basis of the SC judgment now available there is a lot that just doesn't stack up, particularly in the Buttars evidence. It would be surprising if they didn't go to Appeal but I have only got to page 42.

Given the Higgs appeal and the SC judgment this all looks rather unsound based on what I have read so far. If they lost on a technicality which I am yet to read about could they instead go for Buttars personally for defamation? He calls the film (and by implication the makers) and the 3 screening speakers "transphobic" and "homophobic". Now of course extremely difficult to justify...