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: Can you repeat the Q?
AL: Do you suggest that he should have done anything beyond a review?
ST: Given points I raised that the report didn't seem to match the letter, and that he hadn't investigated for other content, I think a rehearing wd have been appropriate, policy allows for that

AL: You had not asked for re-hearing though?
ST: To be honest I don't think I realised there was a distinction - wd have asked for it if I had

AL p1452 the decision letter. He addresses the points you had raised - first is delays, he sets out reasons, does not accept the period in the circs was unreasonable.
ST: Yes but I think 10 month grievance process is exceptional

AL: Then he comes to "fully implement the recommendations", against give reasons and does not uphold. I suggest to you that both these are adequate for a review-based appeal?

ST: Yes but he had made it quite clear he had no interest in re-hearing, only in reviewing, which I don't was an adequate way to do an appeal which was saying no extra investigation done etc, he was not interested.

Para 50 of WS: "On 9 February 2023, the appeal hearing took place with Janet Hughes, Director of Future Farming and Countryside Programme, who had been
appointed as Appeal Manager."

So, no. A senior member of Defra staff, having to take time away from her day job to deal with this.

How in earth has the claimants behaviour to date not resulted in a performance capability procedure? In their statement they said at one point their request to WFH was refused on the basis of the quality of their work…

Schrödinger's harassment?

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

This is just beautiful.

Who is funding this absolute nonsense

From TT:

AL: I thought you said you had not understood difference re re-hearing, you seem now to be saying you were actually asking for one?
ST: I thought the appeal would look at everything that was raised, didn't realise it wouldn't

ST: My point is given what I was saying, he should have known to do a re-hearing
J: He told you he was not interested in doing a re-hearing, did you ask him to?
ST: Was not aware -
J: Did you ask him?
ST: I raised that more investigation needed

AL: You didn't bring new evidence to the appeal. You had none beyond the original in grievance. So you hadn't for example gone into the SEEN group to look for more?
ST: Wd have been breach of comms principles so I wouldn't do that. Also, effect on my well-being.

ST: Am raising here to be heard, doesn't mean I want to go and look.

AL: This is a good point to break, if court wishes?

J: We will take a ten minute break - I expect the clerk will come to fetch you but make sure to come back just in case not
[BREAK]

ST is coming over as one of those people who say Don't you know who I am? bend the knee, tug your forelock and do everything I require without me having to ask you.

And all this bollocks is taxpayer funded.

That exchange is priceless.

Thanks to the TT posters and @fanOfBen for copying here!

Anyone who is watching, I imagine in my head that ST is whining his way through these questions like a three year old who's been told 'no' six times. Is this accurate?

ed sp.

The questions the judge is asking is giving me hope.

ST: Am raising here to be heard, doesn't mean I want to go and look.

He clearly thinks he's due his day in the sun, doesn't he? At someone else's expense. I wonder if he's treating this like a game, some sort of entertainment away from a boring job and menial existence?

This is just as good as Dr Upton's "biological woman" evidence!

I do hope someone like Janice Turner or Sonia Sodha is following this and will write about it.

Is he just one of those career civil servants that no one can get rid of, but no one wants to work with? Well, he'll be on their hit list now.

One of the FOI requests that Laura Brown (who is an "ally" of ST) made regarding the SEEN Network was refused by Defra as unreasonable due to the amount of work it would have entailed. She expected them to trawls through months worth of intranet and Yammer posts to find all references to the SEEN Network.

Towards the end of the WS he writes: "I went from AO to EO in 2 years
and from EO to HEO in another 2. I’ve flatlined for the last 5."

I wonder why that could possibly be? Obviously it's down to institutional transphobia, and nothing at all to do with the amount of trouble he's caused within the agency and the wider Department.

ST: My point is given what I was saying, he should have known to do a re-hearing

Would this have involved some sort of mind reading?

J: He told you he was not interested in doing a re-hearing, did you ask him to?
ST: Was not aware -
J: Did you ask him?
ST: I raised that more investigation needed

So, no then.

AL: You didn't bring new evidence to the appeal. You had none beyond the original in grievance. So you hadn't for example gone into the SEEN group to look for more?

There was no new evidence because the suggested solution was working.

ST: Wd have been breach of comms principles so I wouldn't do that. Also, effect on my well-being.

But just knowing that somewhere on a company computer GC people were conversing seems to be enough to effect his well-being

ST is the only inhabitant in ST's world, everyone else revolves around him.

Thank you to every C&P'er. During the break I envisage that there a currently a lot of "FFS" being muttered by the panel, particularly if they take a look at the live train reports and realise that their train back to base is probably cancelled.

Fair shout for the panel for deciding to continue beyond 3pm on a Friday.

I'm so glad I don't have to deal with office politics any more.

... the amount of trouble he's caused within the agency and the wider Department

Or perhaps too much of ST's day is taken up with offense and the fallout from offense to get any actual work done

From TT:

[We resume]

AL: Qs re the application for special leave now. p1016 - this is before the sick leave but not long before, 4/7, you went on sick leave at the end of July. We can see that on 4/7 employer had already agreed you could work from home, and you were?

ST: Yes
AL: When did you start WFH?
ST: Can't recall - about that time.

AL: p1049 this is later - 19/7 still before sick leave - workplace stress assessment arranged for you?
ST: Yes
AL: We see that do at p1052 - in the "for me this is" column - several places where you describe yourself as 'thriving'?

ST: Yes I can see that
AL: Those are your own descriptions?
ST: I said to line manager at the time that they didn't seem approprriate but yes that's what I selected

AL: Form asks if your colleagues are supportive? Immediate colleagues - Newcastle office - you aren't raising any complaints re this?
ST: No

ST: I'm talking about the people, not the place, to be clear

Just to say that at some point it may be worth emailing the clerks again if you didn't succeed in getting a remote access link at the start of the hearing.

For technical reasons there may be a ceiling on the number they can admit at any one time but it seems they recognise that not every one of the original 40 granted access is going to use it all day, every day.

ST: Yes but he had made it quite clear he had no interest in re-hearing, only in reviewing, which I don't was an adequate way to do an appeal which was saying no extra investigation done etc, he was not interested.

Supposing he loses this case, I am curious whether he will tell the EAT how to conduct its work, also.

He had nearly six months off work because he is so fragile.

From TT:

AL: p1056 re relationships, have you felt harassed, what action needed - it says, avoiding Yammer is not right for Samantha bcs needs access to create basket of evidence for tribunal etc. You were actively looking for access to SEEN posts?

ST: Going to read so that I understand the context
ST: Don't think it's suggesting that, only that I might need to go on Yammer re evidence for the tribunal.

ST: By this point [missed]

AL: This doc is 11/7
ST: When was the post launching SEEN? DEFRA SEEN?
AL: Intranet had been in Nov, SEEN's own in July - let me check exact date - we think, 26/7/2023
ST: So around the time of this assessment.

J: Impending launch of DEFRA SEEN on Yammer or intranet?
ST: Yammer
J: You were already at home?
ST: Yes
J: But did see post?
ST: Yes

AL: You suggest that you were withdrawing from Yammer, but p1056 indicates the opposite, basket of evidence?
ST: for grievances

It sounds like he actively went trawling for stuff so he could kick off about it.