Faye Russell-Caldicott needs you!

[Rightsraptor]

There have been posts about Faye Russell-Caldicott's Employment Tribunal case before if you're thinking the name is familiar. And, BTW, it's a pseudonym as she has been permitted full anonymity.

She's taking NHS England to an ET for indirect discrimination on three grounds:

1. Her gender critical beliefs
2. Sex
3. Religion & disability

She's got the crack legal team of LIz McGlone (solicitor) and Naomi Cunningham (counsel). Jo Phoenix will be giving evidence. It looks as though The Good Law Project was refused leave to intervene. The tribunal is scheduled for 6 working days starting on 16th March and no, I can't see that being long enough either based on previous cases. However. She has a crowdfunder at CrowdJustice, which is easily findable by putting that with her name in your browser.

The bad news is that she has only raised £26,471 out of a stretch target of £70,000 and that's where we come in: we really need to help her if we possibly can. Since this case is about NHS England permitting male staff who ID as women to use the loos, changing rooms, showers etc for female staff, I've been waiting for the news that this case has been settled because how can they continue with this rubbish after the recent tribunal cases, right? They can't win! But it's not happened yet, the ET is only a couple of weeks away and who knows?

TT will be on the case, I think, but I can't imagine it will be pubic access due to the anonymity factor.

NHS England will cease to exist next year.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nhs-england-health-and-social-care-secretarys-statement

I sympathise. It is especially frustrating to cowdfund cases where the other side is being funded by the taxpayer - that's us! We GC women pay twice.

In name. The NHS is pretty good at changing the stationery, giving senior managers huge payoffs and then using staff with less experience to continue the same old same old. Even with the merger with the DH, I still think this is an important legal case in terms of precedent and influence over the sector.

Donated. I agree with pp that it's shocking that we're still having to do this, but what choice do we have if we want to protect our rights?

This case starts next Monday and there seem to be no signs yet of the NHS throwing in the towel. Faye now has a shade over £30k, less than 50% of her target on Crowdjustice, so please contribute if you can. TT hope to cover it.

They must hope that the cost of challenging them will put people off so they win by default and can carry on breaking the law.

It is so unfair.

I believe ETs are structured so you can represent yourself, thereby keeping costs to a minimum, so if claimants do want to engage such amazing people as Naomi Cunningham and Charlotte Elves ... well, up to them really. But this stuff is so important that it is, or should be, outwith the realms of the humble ET if you ask me. Not that anyone did, me not being a lawyer and all.

Best of luck to Faye.

I would guess that having PTSD (I have this myself) that the case could be difficult emotionally for her and lots of publicity could make it worse? Hence the anonymity request? But I'm sure we'll learn more as the case progresses.

I don't think we know the reason for anonymity but the court must be satisfied that it's justified.

Thank you @Rightsraptor for your support (and others as well).

Mid-March update is now available at the usual allotment site.

Apologies I won't have time to respond to everyone individually as we've agreed on the bundle only now and I have received more disclosures from the respondent which I need to go through this weekend.

Thank you for all your support and kind words.

That's her business.
She may have decided not go public after how Sandie Peggie was treated.
It turned into a media circus.
If she already has PTSD she wouldn't be able to cope with the fall-out and getting targetted by potentially violent young men with a porn addiction to boot.

I’ve donated, not much, because I don’t have much to give. I think we are probably all donated out, there have been so many of these cases. Although the tide is turning (I feel we are now on a knife edge having travelled far from the confines of the used twice a year dark drawer of best cutlery) we have to keep these cases alive, each one gets more publicity, more sunshine.

I was happy to contribute. The implications of the case went beyond Allison’s personal circumstances and was an important point to land. I was comfortable that she didn’t have to personally fund a case which had implications for others.

I have a budget for what I donate to these cases. I'm not JKR, I couldnt give to them all each month and sometimes I dont think the case is strong enough for me to support. But sometimes I'll support one that I'm not sure has much chance because the person is suffering from doing the right thing.

I did give some money to Alison and think it was well worth it. The success rate on these cases is high and while I am, like the rest of you, pretty annoyed we still have to do it I'll support them as long as I can. Without the court cases we wouldnt be in an improving situation now.

We know that TRAs will target women who fight back in court and we know that those threats are often violent. The anonymity is not to hide details of the case from the public, it's just to protect a woman from violent nut jobs. The courts dont like anonymity, it's a very high bar to get it. There must have been compelling evidence of a serious risk to Faye.

If you dont feel able to donate money you can also help by writing to/ emailing your MP and criticising the waste of public money in attempting to defend these cases.

I wouldn't be too sure that Allison Bailey was a high earner. If memory serves part of her case was around victimisation because, despite requesting cases close to home because she found paying for travel difficult, they still gave her cases in far flung courts. A small part, but a part nevertheless.

We live in an age of speculation about other people's finances, social media etc always opining about 'how much is X Celeb worth?' And often they get it totally wrong. I live on a very low income but you'd probably not guess that if you met me.

Anyway: Faye on Monday! Knock 'em dead, Faye.

Alison was, I think, claiming £36k a year? So no, not a high earner. There was debate about the reasons for that. It will be in the court papers and maybe a mumsnet thread.

Important things are important things and things not important can be left to later timing.

Thanks, Have contributed. Wish I could have given more.

Whether you plant a seed or an allotment it shows Faye she has support.

NHS England has very recently conceded to two of Faye's claims - indirect discrimination on grounds of sex and disability. They are still fighting against discrimination on grounds of religion and harassment. Employers are probably more likely to concede when they know you have support.

You don't just get anonymity on demand for employment tribunals, the tribunal have decided that there's a good enough reason.

A legal claim based on religion is important.There's been a lot of lip service to "what about religious women?" but no actual legal teeth yet.

(edited to correct missing word from formatting)

Format weirdness is still there . Should say "there's BEEN a lot ...".

Gardening done

Yes this is the first case where a woman is claiming discrimination on grounds of religion and I dont see why they are holding out on that one. If they have mixed sex changing rooms I would have thought anyone could see that discriminates against Muslims and ultra orthodox Judaism. They could try its not an essential part of the religion as some Muslims will accept transgender people as a third sex.

Is there remote access for this one or will the anonymity preclude this? Thank you.

No remote access, TT will be tweeting.