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.

ST seems to really believe that if anyone (meaning women) doesn't believe that he has really changed sex, he will cease to exist (disappear).

Yes, that Tinkerbell.

He is an HEO. It's not a very senior position. Perhaps he means oldest?

Think the statement at para 76 is that they're the most senior that the claimant is aware of in the RPA, which is something like 1/8th of the people in DEFRA. Given context I would expect if they were also the most senior they knew of in DEFRA they'd have made that claim, instead, but to be precise the statement is silent on that point.

Lewis Silkin acts for Tinkerbell and was acting for someone anonymous who was suing Andreas Muller

In case people are finding the name Lewis Silkin familiar but can't recall why, it might be this:

Lewis Silkin was accused of being "grossly misleading" when it produced an analysis of the verdict which advised that men who identified as women were still entitled to use the single sex facilities of their choice in the workplace, and that employers who stopped transwomen from doing so could be sued for discrimination.

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-firms-get-sex-muddle-over-supreme-court-verdict

That’s not a reasonable adjustment. It’s totally unreasonable. Why do people in the public sector have a problem saying “no” , we can’t accept that. Why?

This.

The face value would suggest a being so fragile and unwell that it would be impossible for an employer to find 'reasonable' adjustments that would work, hence the bizarre need for all possible bits of reality and other people's needs/views that he doesn't like be removed from anywhere he might see them. If he went looking. Or sent someone else to go looking.

As pps have explained, there is the immediate jar between the presented story and the emerging obvious reality, not to mention the nerve and energy to fight through to court. And likely a backer and much deeper agenda which is to try to undo or limit Forstater.

Totally agree. ST comes back to work with recommendations for 4 'reasonable adjustments.' It turns out 1 of the 4 is impossible.

Surely at this point it's obviously not a 'reasonable' adjustment if it's impossible for the employer to make?

Thank you!

Kind of explains whether Tinkerbell's solicitors gave him dud advice or he ignored it - his solicitors are crap.

Cant see this case making it all the way to ECHR. You'd need permission to get as far as the Court of Appeal and it's not exactly a strong case.

Not sure it's only his solicitors.

IIRC the original legal people around this/the linked case included Jane Russell and Robin White.

Jane Russell was supposed to be arguing for the employer.

Employment tribunal cases very often involve a claimant who is representing themself against a well funded employer. I doubt this judge is used to people who may have the financial means to appeal his judgements.

I was wondering how Naomi Cunningham will address the claimant on Tuesday. He clearly won’t accept any sex-based terms like Mr, but she surely cannot address him as Mrs? Surname only sounds brusque and rude, first name is too informal and familiar. She can’t say “Hello, Claimant”. Given the judge’s insistence that she can’t use sex-based pronouns, will/can she be forced to call him Mrs?

Excellent poetry, by the way, Boiled!

I was looking at the parts of ST's witness statement concerning Mumsnet posts (Para 38)

I was concerned for my personal safety and fearful that if the media were to pick up on the thread, both I and other identifiable colleagues would be put at risk.

A statement of 'concern for personal safety'

This was soon amplified when 4 days later, someone attempted to access our home on two separate occasions.

'Proof' that the concern was well founded?

I honestly believe it resulted in somebody somewhere finding out where I lived and trying to break in.

A further reinforcement that their 'honest belief' is an honest belief in risk to personal safety that has manifested online comments in the real world

Knowing I was based in the Newcastle office wasn’t hard to find out when SEEN members worked there.

There seems to be a leap from internal messages leaked to it must be a member of SEEN and so all members of SEEN should have been investigated to find the mole

It was from then that I started only attending the office on the same days as my wife for safety.

The risk to personal safety caused me to change my actions at work

ST seems to needs to show a progression from the original online statements that leads through to actual disadvantage at work. The whole thing seems to hinge on 'someone attempted to gain access to our house'.

It this attempted break in evidenced elsewhere in the bundle? A police report or similar?

If the break-in is not evidenced, does the tribunal give the un-evidenced statements any weight?

Edit: spelling

ST may be the only person more delusional about personal safety than Prince Harry.

So someone tried his door and/or a window a time or two and didnt get inside? If he lives in the leeds postcode area there are 6000 burglaries a year and who knows how many trying a window or door and then going away.

Naomi does not have to refer to him as Mrs Tempest, she just asks him questions. Btw I checked TT Substack and realised that Naomi did refer to the bench book when talking about pronouns, but Tinkerbell's solicitor claimed what they were asking for was in line with the bench book - it isnt.

I don't see why it would be too informal for NC to refer to the Claimant by their first name - that was the position agreed in Darlington case for Rose.

Prince Harry was exactly who sprang to mind when I read this from the Ws:

37. On 8 November 2022, a further post was made on Yammer introducing the SEEN network [page number to follow]. I responded to that post by identifying myself as a transgender woman and asking to be left alone.

It reminded me of one of Harry & Meghan's rounds of interviews where they requested over and again that they be left alone being described as The Worldwide Privacy Tour

Another lowhighlight from the WS:

31. Andreas Mueller’s conduct felt highly combative. He was constantly looking for offence and reporting anything he could position as an infraction.

Sorry, that minor explosion was my irony meter overheating. After that it just goes on and on and fucking ON about how awful it was that people were allowed opinions he didn't like, how his posts on the intranet were constantly deleted and how his many grievances weren't upheld. What really comes across out of all of this is just how many people were dragged into his pity party when presumably they had an actual job to do.

I agree. I've known a few people go from the public to private sector who had a nasty shock, not only at how much more work they were expected to do (one expressed surprise at how busy she'd been in her first week, only to be told she was on 'light duties' as a newbie) but also that the perks of better pay, bonuses, private healthcare etc were offset by the expectation that you were actually good at what you did, met your targets and worked hard. If you didn't you'd be managed out.

There is so much whining in the public sector/academia about how awful it is and they really have no idea!

He's been addressed as Mrs Tempest in court so far, I don't know exactly when that was decided, early on obviously, but I don't think he'd take kindly to being addressed as Samantha in court. Remember how Upton had to be called Dr Upton? Status is very important to these types.

It reminded me of one of Harry & Meghan's rounds of interviews where they requested over and again that they be left alone being described as The Worldwide Privacy Tour

Yes! Or Nigel Farage on 'Dead Ringers' - NO, NO, LET ME SPEAK!'

Lewis Silkin have also been providing the CIPD with dodgy advice on trans workplace rights

'You' should be acceptable to all parties. There's no need to anything else when addressing him directly. When speaking to the rest of the court she can use 'the Claimant'.

It will still be compelling her to work hard at not using pronouns at all (when talking about ST to the panel), thereby making extra head work for her when she should be allowed to give over her thinking power entirely to making the best case for her client.