Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 5

[SexRealistic]

https://genderblog.net/sara-morrison-v-belfast-film-festival/

From NW

SD goes to Higgs "However, if the dismissal is motivated not simply by the expression of
the belief itself (or third parties’ reaction to it) but by something
objectionable in the way in which it was expressed, determined objectively,
then the effect of the decision in Page v NHS Trust Development Authority is
that the dismissal will be lawful if, but only if, the employer shows that it
was a proportionate response to the objectionable feature"

There was no dismissal in this case. Hadn't got close. It was an investigation (iv) and that is a neutral act.

It might have exonerated C.

My pleasure xx

It was an investigation (iv) and that is a neutral act.
It might have exonerated C.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Microsoft will send a password to the IT administrator who could be the CEO and then she sent it.

Personally I would have texted it to her, or better still I would have set up a Password Management system using an authorised app. I would have saved itnin there and shared in securely with her within the app.

Also no-one has an expectation of privacy for work emails. As the Board has discovered.

From NW

SD goes to NC's claim that the word "inclusive" was a tell in the invite to investigation. That was not a reference to the fact R is a "cold house" for sex realist views. It is about R being an inclusive org. "MC in his evidence was v clear that the festival is a broad church

... he was v clear that whilst he disagreed with C's opinions, she was nonetheless entitled to hold them."

... he was v clear that whilst he disagreed with C's opinions, she was nonetheless entitled to hold them."

But not speak them out loud...

I wonder if "Belfast a very small place" will come in to the response. Absolute bollox of a defence, doesn't matter what size the pond is.

From NW

Indeed when NC suggested that MC was trying to move SM out of the organisation by reporting he wanted to "accelerate the process" that was a "jaw-dropping moment". None of the R witnesses ever expressed any intent that C was not entitled to hold her views. and when you come to the way the C resigned, for example Dr McKeown was v clear that people who hold diametrically opposed opinions can still work with each other. We had an unexpected appearance this week from Sarah Palin. She was John McCain's running mate in 2007. McCain and Obama did not agree on much, bu McCain still asked Obama to deliver the eulogy at his funeral. You can disagree and still deal with people respectfully.
Was it R who forced C out because they didn't like her opinions, or was it C who voluntarily chose to resign because she didn't like R's opinions.

SD It is not a proper comparator saying MD appearing in a Sinn Fein video - she got board approval to do so. So she cannot be a comparator - her circs were materially different. So - what is a hypothetical comparator - it has to be somebody who in their private time...

... "publicly speaks at a rally, having some kind of role at that rally without board approval and expresses that political opinion in a way which causes the employer to receive complaints and causes individuals to q the rep of the employer"

Is there a danger that the decision not to argue against LWS being inherently right wing and transphobic might mean that the judge will think it is, and therefore decide that SM expressed her beliefs in an unacceptable context ie at an event which has been referred to as transphobic etc etc without any defence?

... "publicly speaks at a rally, having some kind of role at that rally without board approval and expresses that political opinion in a way which causes the employer to receive complaints and causes individuals to q the rep of the employer"

Well, well, well...

The employer with the right to curtail the employee's free speech if they don't agree.

If this was true, then MD should not have publicly worn the trans inclusional [is this even a word?] feminist t-shirt.

Nice correct use of publicly rather than publically. If you want to know why publicly is better, remove the 'ly' and you'll understand.

Dr McKeown was v clear that people who hold diametrically opposed opinions can still work with each other.

Well, that's not completely true is it?

'Other than being recognisable, there's nothing that SM did wrong by speaking as she did. "I don't agree", said McKeown. "She appeared at a public rally with two people who have very contentious views and it would be like me appearing on a platform with dissident republicans who still advocate for armed struggle." McKeown opined that if that happened, he very quickly would no long be on the board of the BFF.'

She was John McCain's running mate in 2007. McCain and Obama did not agree on much, bu McCain still asked Obama to deliver the eulogy at his funeral. You can disagree and still deal with people respectfully.

McCain and Obama actually shared a lot, including a bit of common decency, which some current politicians in the US clearly lack.

From NW

"Now, most if not all R W's said that if anyone expressed any view which caused blowback for the org, then there would be an iv. MD said she would be iv'd in those circs."

Dr McKeown gave an example where he could expect to be investigated if he were to speak an event attend by people who might get him "dirty by association".
"What else is an employer supposed to do?... What else was the Film Festival supposed to do."

SD takes the grievance interview with MD from 15 3 2024 where she is asked:
Why did you take the dec to iv Sara?
She replies "After that happened, I watched the video after checking she was OK, I watched the bit she
said, and I was surprised, the groups Sara listed in the public forum they are all user groups
that we partner with, we have worked with them previously, and I was shocked. She was
basically in elegant way calling them fraudulent. We work with them.
Her role as an inclusion officer, I was in total shock. We work with them."

Hopefully this will keep you all going for the afternoon.
@MyrtleLion will know the location of the hot chocolate.
I hope she does, because I'll be wanting some once I get back into the warm.

Dr McKeown gave an example where he could expect to be investigated if he were to speak an event attend by people who might get him "dirty by association".
Gosh, that's fine from a former terrorist!

You have to find a way that she could express her views AND that didn't take sides. If MD hadn't worn the t-shirt without incident, then this would be more difficult.

But they took sides. They should have investigated the CEO if this was true.

And in any case it has not been disputed that LWS just lets women speak and doesn't know what they will say and doesn't censor them.

From NW

This was before any court case - that is her clear answer.
SD R accepts C's sex-realist views are political opinion - but if you find that calling women's groups "a racket" is not a political opinion then this case must fail.

SD goes back to NC's point about the filmmaker's allegation against SM - that R didn't believe the complaint was real. R had no view of that. That's why it was being investigated. NC said SM would be suspended. Well - R is a tiny org. Do smaller employers tend to suspend?

What would it achieve? Sus is not a neutral act - after that most people are usually out the door. the fact SM was not suspended should be to R's credit.

The gerbils are getting the bowser ready for you.

Interesting that the Respondent lawyer said this:

What would it achieve? Sus is not a neutral act - after that most people are usually out the door. the fact SM was not suspended should be to R's credit.

Because it is in every single handbook that suspension is a neutral act, and the opposite generally has to be argued in court every time a tribunal discusses a suspension. He's conceded it immediately.

From NW

hi viz - claimant conceded under xe that she had some role at the event.
SD it's been suggested that the contract of employment is some opportunistic [?] by R

"Secondary employment: You shall not without the express permission of management engage in any paid or
unpaid activity which may directly conflict with the business interests of the employer or
its members or which may interfere with your normal work."
ANY - note any

On its face the C had committed a breach of that contract which merited iv. Now the iv may have agreed with C's interpretation - that the contract was not aimed at that kind of work. But the employer must be allowed to iv

Goes to R's written response: "Whilst Ms Paterson accepted that the Claimant attended this event in a personal
capacity, she found that the Claimant did not inform the Respondent that she was
intending on speaking at this event, despite the public controversy that surrounded
the same. Furthermore, within the Claimant’s contract of employment, it states that...the employee, “shall not without the express permission of management engage in
any paid or unpaid activity which may directly conflict with the business interest of the
employer or its member which may interfere with your normal work.”

SD This has always been part of our case.

SD the decision to iv was an operational one made by MD and the board was clear about that. LB and MTM were supportive, but it was MD's decision to make.

You shall not without the express permission of management engage in any paid or unpaid activity which may directly conflict with the business interests of the employer or its members or which may interfere with your normal work." ANY - note any.

That cannot be viewed as reasonable, surely? ANY activity??? That literally covers everything you do outside of work!

What a shit take from R lawyer. Suspension not neutral? To be my most NI: What the actual fuck, like?

Tell me how it conflicts with a business interest? They're claiming it's because groups didn't want to work with them, but we know that was a confection on their part for an event they never were going to put on.

And should we have to tell our employers we're going to speak at an event like Fesshole? Or an open mic night?

From NW

SD takes court to MD's response to C's resignation letter: "Dear Sara
It was with great regret that I read your resignation email.
The narrative on social media and in various correspondences from you from the
very start made so many misconceived assumptions about myself and Belfast Film
Festival.
We made a neutral request for an investigation into complaints we received. This
investigation never took place because you initiated an internal grievance
process, quickly followed by an external legal process. The investigation was
thwarted by the fact these two processes had to be dealt with first. I would like to
make it clear that the investigation was not a "misconduct investigation", it was
intended to be a neutral, fact-finding process, as is our right as an employer
where complaints are received.
In addition to the damage to the reputation of our organisation, your colleagues
and I have suffered greatly from stress, ill-health and hurt throughout this entire
process. It has been the most difficult 16 months of my entire life.
I wish you and your family well and hope you find satisfaction in whatever
direction your life and career go next.
With warm regards
Michele
Michele Devlin"

SD there is a claim on C's side there is hostiliy - it is unfortunately "regrettable and sad" and R's position is SM was "good and her job... she was liked." "She jumped when she didn't have to."

SD C suggests R doesn't understand diff between transphobia and sex realist views and that it doesn't act on transphobic views. R disapproves of transphobic views. The failure to act was not approval of transphobia, nor that it didn't happen. It is a tiny org.

FFS it is very easy to write a "sympathetic" email but it is pretty clear MD and board didn't believe a word of it.