From NW
The written submissions are now available to be inspected by the public. Here are the results of a v quick and incomplete skim through. Respondents first:
"The present case is not about the correctness or otherwise of gender critical or sex realist views. It is not about whether transwoman should be allowed to compete in female sports. These are matters the Tribunal does not have to make a determination upon."
"Despite the clear desire of the Claimant to make the case about such matters... this is a relatively straightforward case and relates to whether or not an employer is entitled to investigate in circumstances where it is receiving complaints relating to an employee."
"17. It is also at this stage important to note Ms Devlin was clear that she was aware of the claimant’s views around transgenderism prior to the left woman speak about [presume that's meant to be "the Let Women Speak event"]. Given that these views appear to be of central importance to the claimant it is unsurprising that her work colleagues would be aware of those views. There is no evidence that at any time in the past there was any suggestion that the claimant would be investigated or disciplined because of her views in this area. Ms Devlin did say that she intended to raise the claimant’s comments at Belfast Exposed and outside a pub at her supervision but that again shows that those types of views were not something that were a cause for any investigation. The panel is therefore entitled to conclude that there was no rush on the part of Ms Devlin to investigate as soon as she saw the LWS speech. It is submitted this would be a fair but important conclusion as it will assist the Tribunal in making a conclusion as to what operated on the mind of Ms Devlin when she decided to initiate an investigation."
"27. The response to the 3 July 2023 email from Outburst arts can be seen at 207. It is clear from this that the in the eyes of that organisation the manner in which the claimant had manifest her political opinion was divisive and lead them to not want to work with the claimant. The email stated that it “feels deeply inappropriate” to receive an email that the claimant is copied into.
- The Queerspace response is at 221. The Tribunal would be entitled to infer that that email again flags up an unwillingness to work with the Claimant and as a consequence, damage to the Respondent both in terms of its reputation and its ability to deliver work with partner organisations."
"... the Tribunal would be entitled to conclude that emails from Mark Cousins were operating on Ms Devlins mind when she decided to have an investigation. At 303 the email from Mr Cousins of 25 May makes clear that he has an issue with the organiser of the LWS event. He also states the Respondent can’t control the thoughts of staff. This shows it is the manner that the claimant manifested her views that was of concern and not the views themselves."
"Ms Devlin was clear that it was the impact on the organisation as a consequence of how the claimant manifested her views that was rationale for the investigation. In particular she was concerned about the criticism of partner organisations."
"The Respondent has properly accepted that a belief that biological sex is materially real and not be conflated with self-identified gender is a relevant political opinion. However, there is a further issue as to whether or not the extracts of the Claimant’s speech that caused the Respondent concern, that being criticism of woman’s groups for being a ‘racket’, is a political opinion. If it is not then the entire discrimination case must fail."
"In respect of the initiation of the investigation, it is important that the Tribunal considers who made that decision and their mental processes. Whilst the board were supportive of an application it is clear that it was an operational decision and would have been a matter for Ms Devlin. Even if it was a joint decision by Ms Devlin, Ms Barros D’Sa and Ms McGivern it is clear from the evidence of all that it was the comments about woman’s groups and the damage to the respondent that caused them to agree to or be supportive of an investigation. The decision to investigate was not therefore an act of discrimination."