Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 5

[fanOfBen]

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

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 existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). 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.
I will also 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. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

NB: Also DEFRA has a very mature approach to these matters. So I look at history as a predictor of future behaviour.

From TT:

NB yes
HH when did you become aware of Forstater in the EAT
NB quite soon after, my EDI team following closely
HH from June 2021 to the time of this claim there was no plan to mitigate any harms from the Forstater decision

NB two things Yammer had been operated over a number of years by a number of communities without any problems so it gave me confidence in our people and our compliance. Also DEFRA has a very mature approach to these matters. So I look at history as a predictor of future behaviour. My team would be considering the impact of the ruling, in contact with colleagues in other orgs, and in particular with the Cabinet Office. It was in that context that we hoped and expected not a problem.

HH history as an indicator of future behaviour, the debate around Forstater was quite difference from say gardening

'Harm' has been used a number of times, unchallenged - it would be nice if a grown-up asked 'what is your definition of harm - injury? damage? can you show that there was any actual injury or damage caused?'

From TT:

NB yes it was different
HH it was an issue that provoked very fierce debate
NB I was aware it was a societal issue with strongly held views
HH a debate that spilled over onto social media on a regular basis
NB I'm not a regular user of social media, but I was kept aware by my team.

HH the word toxic was often used, did you hear that
NB that word wasn't used but I became aware that's how it could be described

Yes my very hurty feels!!!

Are those non-binary hydrangeas? What about the pink and blue ones? I think I'm very offended they haven't been included.

'harm' 'toxic' - HH using the same hyperbole as TRAs.

From TT:

HH there was no documented plan to deal with it
NB There was no documented plan, I and my team work on the basis of risk, we had a well documented code of conduct, we had a history that didn't point to a significant risk. What I'm saying is that I'm relying on the established policies and practices to manage a more heightened risk.

HH no form of risk analysis of assessment
NB I didn't
J we've heard that
HH you said that you weren't aware of issues until you had Carolyn Airs CA note,

Mmm, when someone claims harm through racial abuse we dont make them show physical harm or damage. Why would this be different?
Is racism ok if it just causes "hurty feelings"? Racists certainly think so.

From TT:

A note to you and deputy,
NB one of my reports,
HH J do you and the panel want to read the note
J yes, good if we read it
[reading]

[still reading]

Racism is not a reasonable comparator to saying men can never be women.

risk analysis ? Why would they do that? that's a ridiculous suggestion.
As NB said, there were guidelines in place - it's quite an admission that now that genderwoo has appeared, there have to be risk assessments for grown-ups who have been using this platform for ages, in their thousands without 'risk'.

HH acting under the assumption that the toxicity was just coming from SEEN, and not simply a result of people diasagreeing that men were women, and speaking out on behalf of sex based protections -which of course was verboten.

From TT:

HH rec'd on 5 July 22 from CA. She brings to your attention an issue arising in March following a Yammer post in EA on Int'l Women's Day, listed of admired women with GC views

J can you try not to read out large chunks of text please

HH caused distress to trans colleagues no one brought to your attention before July
NB I have monthly one to ones with deputies, it may have been mentioned
HH so no consideration given to the balance between trans colleagues and the right of gc colleagues to put forward views
NB hard to answer categorically, there would have been discussion in EDI team, they would have been discussing, they are empowered professionals, they wouldn't have come to me with everything they are working on

HH but taking action in March would have been reactive, not anticipatory
NB I've explained how we had confidence

NB is saying they are all professional and grown up and are capable of dealing with difficulties and 'risks' as they present themselves.

From TT:

in our approach and the note from CA is setting out actions that she and the team were planning to make, we are not an employer who is passive, we are setting out to manage risk as we see it arise, when I see the actions CA is proposing as next steps, I'm reassured by the comprehensive nature of the actions

HH drew you attention to the toxic nature of debate in wider society, was reactive, an individual in Natural England had shared a post she planned to make, carefully worded but was anticipating a strong response.
J it looks like the catalyst

On international Women's Day a post centres women who believe the word woman doesn't include males. And of course the men get upset about it.

Not the point. The point is that if the harm /damage from a toxic workplace has to be physical rather than mental (which what was being argued) then that affects a lot more than trans people.

HH rec'd on 5 July 22 from CA. She brings to your attention an issue arising in March following a Yammer post in EA on Int'l Women's Day, listed of admired women with GC

This is unbelievable! The thought police demanding a veto on what women can be mentioned by women on IWD
And until recently, most if not all feminist women would have had GC views i.e. women=biological women.

From TT:

in bringing that to your attention
NB yes, but I want to address this notion of 'reactive', this wasn't a wild west culture, we had a clear set of codes and policies being observed and policies. As soon as there was a reach out about this proposed post - they didn't say go ahead this is an HR culture that was leaning in and actively trying to manage this.

HH you were in charge of HR for 30k people this post and others like it was going to impact on a number of people, we saw in March it was going to upsetting and damaging to trans people
NB my team were

a Yammer post in EA on Int'l Women's Day, listed of admired women with GC views
…
HH caused distress to trans colleagues no one brought to your attention before July

Forgive us for having ONE DAY where we can celebrate women without having to centre trans people.

FFS.

From TT:

aware of the sensitivity, trying to manage the risk but do so in line with the HR policy and codes.
HH is that a good time to break
J were you going on to something else
HH related but a good time for a pause
J standard guidance to witness not to discuss evidence

Court rises.

I'm so glad I never again have to be in gainful employment. I could not be doing with this level of batshit in the workplace.

A little surprised the witness , who is supposed to consider ALL employees not just the trans ones, hasn't mentioned the extreme distress caused to GC women ( all the death/ rape threats from TRAs in the public arena, or the harm & distress felt by women within the organisation who had been forcefed ' TWAW' and GO beliefs in the workplace for years and told to accept trans identifying men in the ladies loos.

typo Gi not GO -gender identity beliefs