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:

ST: ANd SEEN posts are not necessarily in their own group - so I might see them - so, convos in I think it wsa menopause / breastfeeding groups - nothing to do with SEEN but they post - and I still get notifications, I haven't been removed form everything, which is astounding.

AL: The examples of claimed harassment in 2nd grievance - those were the only ones you had. Bcs not being exposed to content you wd find offensive?
ST: I was off work bcs of DEFRA inability to keep harmful content away. I was at home, not my choice, I didn't make the situation.

AL: You were not exposed to any SEEN content, to be clear
ST: No I wasn't, because not at work.

[My note: why was he in menopause or breastfeeding groups anyway? No actually, don't answer that.]

One or two? No. But I think if everyone in a workplace wears a rainbow lanyard and the walls show a large quantity of material about trans issues - at a government department about agriculture - then women can reasonably feel uneasy about single-sex policies regarding changing rooms, showers, toilets and other such issues. And whether they are likely to be marked down by their superiors and peers if it is discovered they feel that way. A rash of recent tribunal cases and decisions makes that an extremely reasonable way to feel.

Unsafe seems to be a word doing a lot of heavy lifting, so trying to frame the same idea with different words might be helpful.

There seems to be another conflict here in the tribunal: if a point of view is commonly expressed then it is at the same time both making an unsafe environment, but also must be reasonable because of its popularity. I think the second element of that is the flaw.

He was off work for nearly six months because he is so fragile. His employer was amazingly indulgent.

I think you called it!

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.

It's like managing a child by just saying yes to everything they want, and removing everything around them that you don't want them to touch. Problem solved!

ST: ANd SEEN posts are not necessarily in their own group - so I might see them - so, convos in I think it wsa menopause / breastfeeding groups - nothing to do with SEEN but they post -

He was worried he might see SEEN posts in Menopause and breastfeeding groups he might join? I do hope the judge has a full note of this.

Menopause and breastfeeding groups, eh? For a man in his late 40s/50s who transitioned late in life. #TellMeItsNotAFetish

From TT:

J: You've accepted you didn't see content because off work for about 6 months?
ST: Yes and not exposed to work systems

AL: p1434 - letter 3/4/24 Steve Moore's decision letter. Decision is not to uphold grievance
ST: Yes
AL: Refers to finding that platform was closed, as per policies, same as Mr Hardman found.

ST: re per policies, I have lots of emails about it not being, and he didn't investigate further
AL: p1436 SM goes into some detail why he doesn't accept your complaint - says, posts dealt with at the time, that changes to Yammer made

AL: He also says the changes made to Viva Engage have had great success in reducing complaints - c100 to 1 or 2 per month
ST: Reduction in complaint is bcs trans ppl have realised DEFRA is not going to take action, and will punish them for what they write instead

ST: If you look at moderation log, huge imbalance, posts by trans ppl moderated compared to GC members. This is not a useful paragraph

ST: What's happening is that trans ppl are being punished, emails from line managers, not surprised they don't complain

NC will have caught that, no doubt.

Employers really and I mean, really, need to get rid of all these groups and message boards and shit and just get people doing their fucking job.

How exactly is this going to run for 3 weeks?!?! They just don’t seem to have a case!

He was in menopause/breastfeeding groups? And he doesn’t understand just how weird this makes him appear?

ST: Reduction in complaint is bcs trans ppl have realised DEFRA is not going to take action, and will punish them for what they write instead

Welcome to Our World, mate.

From TT:

AL: Isn't it more likely that ppl simply aren't seeing things they strongly disagree with, bcs private?
ST: Well ppl are forbidden to join the group if they don't agree with it. And, it's the harassers that do the moderating, judge and jury, doesn't make sense

J: You do need to really answer the question you are asked - AL cd you ask again
AL: Re reduction of complaints - isn't the obvious explanation that, ppl are simply not being exposed to what they dislike, bcs private groups?

ST: Perhaps partially- yes, SEEN posts not visible - but, SEEN do post on other groups too.

AL: p1438 - SM has set out detailed findings, then summarises that s/o expressing GC beliefs is not wrong - that there are many groups that other ppl would disagree with - cites complaint numbers as evidence re success of closed groups -

AL: he notes that if policies etc are breached that would need looking at, but has not happened here.
ST: That is blaming me for being off sick and not able to get more evidence, he should have gone to look for it, would not have reached that conclusion if he had

I'd hazard a guess that the menopause and BF policies don't mention woman/women once. Has ST anything to back up what was triggering there?

Andreas could be posting in the IT group about nothing SEEN related and ST would be triggered. Also you know, he could turn off ALL notifications.

It’s interesting that HH as the claimants barrister is making no objections at any point (cf Jane Russell in the Peggie hearing).

(I am up and down a ladder painting which is not a good idea as my eyes are rolling so hard today that I can’t see what I’m doing.)

There is nowhere women can go to escape these men.

ST: That is blaming me for being off sick and not able to get more evidence, he should have gone to look for it, would not have reached that conclusion if he had

What fresh hell is this????????

So he wasn't even working while all this was going on and other people should have been searching harder to find stuff ST disagreed with? And oh no, SEEN memberrs were posting in other places?

From TT:

AL: It's not reasonable for you complain that when you make specific allegations which SM did address, he should instead have done a months-long open-ended investigation. That's not reasonable.

ST: Disagree
J: What do you say he should have done? He found, no discriminatory posts evidenced.
ST: He should have gone to look for them.

AL: You appeal - goes to [missed the name]. p1452 is that outcome letter. He had met you to discuss?
ST: Yes we met

AL: In WS he says, he was conducting the review for the appeal?
ST: That depends how he decided to conduct it.
AL: I can take you to the policy - it does say, an appeal should be a review. p1667 is the policy

AL: para 65 - sets out how to conduct, so as to decide whether the original decision is reasonable. Are you suggesting he should have taken a different approach?
ST: Will just read this
AL: Yes

ST: That is blaming me for being off sick and not able to get more evidence, he should have gone to look for it, would not have reached that conclusion if he had

FFS.

ST: That is blaming me for being off sick and not able to get more evidence, he should have gone to look for it, would not have reached that conclusion if he had

He doesn't seem to realise that if he didn't see a particular post then he cannot have been harassed by it. Does the tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is nobody to hear it?

Once again I’m scunnered.
WHO is paying this man’s legal bill?

I wonder how much work he actually does when he's at his desk. I'd like to know how much time he spends online, and what/who he is searching for.

J: What do you say he should have done? He found, no discriminatory posts evidenced.
ST: He should have gone to look for them. (my bold)

I can almost see the cogs turning, and the brain telling the mouth: 'Don't say he should have made up more complaints. Don't say it!'

J: What do you say he should have done? He found, no discriminatory posts evidenced.
ST: He should have gone to look for them.

And, on not finding them, looked a little harder, until he did. And if not then, it would have been right and proper to create some, so they could be found. All in the interests of Justice.

I wonder how that made his female colleagues feel?