Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread (follow on from Chair of SEEN is being sued)

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5031904-the-chair-of-seen-is-being-sued
TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.

The hearing is in Leeds; the number of online observers has been limited by the court due to "capacity" and posters are reporting that requests for links are being declined on those grounds.

Also to note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case.

From TT:

AL: You mention rainbow lanyards, do you know of any others?
ST: Can't say
AL: p866 - Email 30/5/23 from Caroline A to Nicola B - says no incidents known concerning SEEN lanyards.
ST: No recorded incidents I agree. Feels like it wasn't being taken seriously

AL: p872, internal doc, re lanyards it says "only has name and logo" - you accept that was all they had?
ST: Yes that was the design but as I keep saying, there is all the other stuff behind the name

AL: [ref] says CS has for a long time allowed networks to have lanyards, badges etc - so SEEN is just doing what other networks do?
ST: [kind of agrees]
AL: SEEN was gov wide, no DEFRA funding?
ST: I think they applied for some but didn't take it

AL: p1092 - post from Andreas Mueller, says it's on SEEN network, 26/7/2023, refers to SEEN being officially recognised as a DEFRA diversity network.
ST: Yes
AL: p1267 - announcement re the same thing, this time on DEFRA intranet. Has 3 pages of detail re SEEN values and beliefs.

AL: Then at p1268 - v similar text to the SEEN constitution we looked at earlier - commitment to PSED and respectful dialogue.
AL: Then first response 21/11/2023 - so presumably that was date of the second notice.
AL: Which of the two did you first see, re existence of DEFRA SEEN?

It think it was egs of networks that could be formed if based on beliefs - a comma missing between religion and anti

I agree. I don't want even a fraction of most people at work.

I'm suprised ST hasn't added his complaints about the LGBT group not meeting his expectations to the claim.
"Yes, Defra, you had a group but they were doing it wrong!"

Love this line of questioning!

Next questions :"in what way were you harassed/intimidated if these were allowed?"; "where are the GC equivalents?" ; "weren't these intimidating/harassing GC? "

Equal and opposite harassment is still harassment. One doesn’t cancel the other.

From TT:

ST: I think I saw both - the first one I was still in work, but I think on sick leave when second came out in November.
AL: You started sick leave end of July?
ST: Yes

AL: To have seen the post AM wrote, you would have had to access the SEEN network?
ST: Unless it was still public at that time
AL: Yes.

AL: p1270 - this is response to the intranet post from a Finn C - says "this article" - presumably the one at 1267 [reads - comparing religious beliefs / gay marriage to gender-critical / trans - says, starting to see that can co-exist in good faith]

AL: Apologies for reading it all out!
AL: My point is - not all trans colleagues shared your views of SEEN?
ST: Be amazed if all shared, this person is trying to see all side, later in this convo I posted my views that trans-excluding, this person responded to me too

ST: So yes this person is trying to see all sides but that doesn't mean is endorsing SEEN. Not all trans ppl have same views on everything.

From TT:

AL: Do you accept that not all trans ppl would agree with you about the existence of SEEN?
ST: Have seen a couple of surveys asking that sort of question, and it's not 100% of ppl that find gender critical expression offensive the great majority do.

ST: If that person looked at this bundle at all the things have been said, I can't believe they would still think SEEN is in good faith.

AL: You mention a:Gender survey - I'm going to be asking your witness about that so will leave it there?
ST: OK

AL: Do you accept that DEFRA is not the only place to have a SEEN group?
ST: Don't know of any others
AL: EDM says she understands there are 4
ST: Where?
AL: You would have to ask her
ST: In that case I can't comment, as I don't know

AL: Would like to look at claimant additional bundle
ST: Don't think I have it?
[It is being located]

I know but... pah!

Meanwhile, totally agree that nobody wants to see anyone's whole self at work

I think the argument though would be for ST that GC graphics and symbols in plain sight would BE harassment, where 'trans ally' graphics and symbols are not. Obviously if one is then the other is too.

From TT:

[discussion - it may be that only an electronic version has been lodged - C needs a hard copy - ppl are checking this]

J: How many pages will you refer to?
AL: At this point about 6 pages. If better for tribunal I can save this Q for later?
J: That would be best
AL: Will make a note to come back to this.

AL: p985 - your second grievance. 19/6/2023, grievance itself starts on the next page. If we look at its 2nd page, the crux is that you had won on appeal and that key recommendation should have been implemented
ST: Yes that's my understanding of grievance process.

AL: Further down you that on 6/4 DEFRA had said they could not accept the recommendation - we've discussed earlier - and then on p988 you provide what you say are examples of further issues you've experienced since the recommendations?
ST: Yes

AL: So you refer to a complaint you'd made on 3/5 - from an article?
ST: Yes
AL: You raise issue of SEEN lanyards, we've discussed.

AL: You go on to say that SEEN members have referred to "What is a woman" Matt Walsh. And then you refer to posts - one by EDM regarding the EA2010 protected characteristics.
ST: Yes

@fanOfBen Just catching up on this thread. You are doing sterling work. If you do need a break or start to melt in the heat I can take over. Just let me know

From TT:

AL: Your grievance says all of these are specific instances of harassment
ST: Yes

AL: p990 your requested outcome includes, DEFRA to carry out the original recommendations in full?
ST: Yes
AL: Steve Moore appointed as decision maker?
ST: Eventually yes

AL: Carl Harman as investigator?
ST: Yes

AL: p1387 his report 19/2/2024
ST: Yes
AL: He spoke to DB, CA and NB?
ST: Yes
AL: And yourself
ST: yes

AL: p1389 "Summary of evidence" - includes that DEFRA no longer provides open platform for GC belief - the migration in April 2023
ST: Have to disagree. Emails in the bundle indicate, group was private originally but kept being turned back to public.

AL: Report finds SEEN group private from October 2023
ST: Yes
AL: p1390 bullet re evidence - says NB was not provided with notes and was surprised by some of the recommendations, as appeared to be breach of EA2010?

ST: It says perceived, not that they would have been - I can agree to that

I'm ok for now thanks, but will shout if I stop being!

This one had passed me by. Thank you to everyone posting!

I don’t think that has to be the case. You would have to still establish that pride flags (etc) are a harassment to GC people even after you had established that SEEN network lanyards are a harassment to trans identifying people. I think they’re separate arguments to be made, not tit-for tat.

From TT:

AL: p1393 "Summary of findings" - says evidence supports complaint at time it was made, and that [a policy?] may have been breached - I stress "may"?
ST: That's what he says

AL: Goes on to say that the issues have been resolved by the network migration?
ST: As I say, many instances where SEEN has changed its settings back to public, so, no, recurrence not prevented, posts still going out. DEFRA can't stop the setting being changed.

ST: Can refer you to the emails?
AL: The evidence we looked at was that SEEN was written to in October, and EDM evidence is that settings were not changed back.
ST: Not as far as I know, but that doesn't mean they weren't

[My note: wait what? Were they or weren't they?]

From TT:

AL: p1393 - re the posts you had complained about - he provides reasons why he does not agree they are harassments?
ST: I had returned to work at this point, was under instruction to avoid situations where I'd be harassed - burden was on me - so it's unfair to ask me for evidence

J: You had provided those two examples?
ST: I provided what I knew about, but there could be loads more examples, because I'm deliberately limiting my exposure.
J: Are you saying in your grievance there were others?
ST: in grievance only referred to what I knew.

ST: Wd have expected full investigation to see if there were any others, but nobody looked into it.

[My note: I may have been harassed, but I don't know??]

AL: p1390 bullet re evidence - says NB was not provided with notes and was surprised by some of the recommendations, as appeared to be breach of EA2010?

NB coming across quite well at this point. Not sure on JH (who made the recs) actual position - if she has HR background/post.

I think it would be difficult for GC people to say with a straight face that rainbow lanyards made them feel "unsafe".

ST: I had returned to work at this point, was under instruction to avoid situations where I'd be harassed

I wonder if this means that he was told that if he didn't want to see SEEN posts he shouldn't log onto the SEEN network

(my bold)

J: You had provided those two examples?
ST: I provided what I knew about, but there could be loads more examples, because I'm deliberately limiting my exposure.
J: Are you saying in your grievance there were others?
ST: in grievance only referred to what I knew.

Yes, that's usually how it works. You refer to the harassment that actually happened and that you knew about. Not those that might have happened if you'd been given more time to make stuff up!

From TT:

AL: The SEEN group was private from 11/10 onwards, so if you wanted to find the information you speculate existed, you would have had to join SEEN?
ST: Yes

AL: And that was because respondent had taken action?
ST: Well if I had going to look I would have been told I was trying to police the network.

J: You accept you would have had to join the network to see posts? Are you saying DEFRA told you not to join it?
ST: Had been told to make efforts not look for offensive content, bcs they cd/had set up network so I didn't need to see it. And comms principles are, don't police other gorups

AL: p1322 - stress work risk assessment Jan 2024
ST: Yes
AL: mentions adjustments made - that removing you from groups it would let you avoid notifications. R did take steps to remove you from groups you did not want to see.

AL: You could have rejoined if you wanted to? To police a network?
ST: Not to police - comms principles. But to note - I still get Viva Engage notifications, inc some from Andreas bcs it thinks I engage with his content.

Thanks for the sterling work on the TTs by posters on this thread.

Yes, because it’s taken for granted that we will be the sensible adults.

Sorry to drag this back to pronouns - but no-one made the point that Naomi has to present a case for her client, she is their representative. While it's not as bad as being told to lie under oath wrong sex pronouns are a restriction on her duty to present her client's case.