Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 6

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-5

TT substack: 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.

Please 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.

It's always the way.
'I am at risk of harm in the men's toilets!'
Yes, mate, and women are at even more risk of harm from men in our toilets!

I'm concluding that self-centredness is a feature not a bug - or maybe the less self-obsessed TWs keep themselves to themselves.

But even if the grievance process was unreasonably long, that doesn't mean it was discrimination.

And even if some of the comments veered into harassment it isn't automatically discrimination either if the employer had done all they reasonably could to prevent this happening.

This is going to be a v difficult case for ST to win. It's going to depend on whether the judge can consider it neutrally, or whether he is captured.

HH and that was ultimately the prevailing factor in your mind - fear of a claim of direct discrim
NB fear of a claim was not the prime reason, we sought to create

That would be joyous

From TT:

HH given the evidence that you had of impact and distress the fact that SEEN member already had ability to express was an important in the balancing act
J you're being asked if you needed another one
NB I don't know that need came into it, we had a number of networks at dept

level that also existed at a xdept level. The question for me and my team was did we want to treat SEEN differently.
HH and that was ultimately the prevailing factor in your mind - fear of a claim of direct discrim
NB fear of a claim was not the prime reason, we sought to create

a working environment that was fair, where people felt valued, it wasn't a sense of fear of a claim against us
HH email from CA to TW, copying Sarah McNally, you're not copied on this email, can I ask you about page 141, CA is saying this is in the context of re-issuing post

.......a working environment that was fair, where people felt valued, it wasn't a sense of fear of a claim against us.

Other people have feelings and rights too, you know.

So far I've not yet had a coherent rebuttal from acquaintances to my suggestion that men can and should stop hitting other men (stolen wholesale, I believe, from the excellent Akua, but I'm not entirely sure).

HH: tribunals seem sympathetic to GC views, were you aware of this?

To repeat, are you intending to take over the c&p? You're very welcome, but if you're not committing to post every tweet, I suggest you don't post any except where you're commenting - if we both do it, it just makes it harder for people to follow the thread. I'm happy to give way if you're going to do it though!

... and where CoC and Nolan Principles (NP) were embodied in the work place

Is there an argument to be made that if you can't follow these rules and tolerate other's opinions then you should not be working in the civil service?

If GC belief is so damaging to some how can you be sure that they will interact evenhandedly with the general public?

I imagine she might wish to clarify some points for her written subs.

NB: it's not an exceptional occurrence for employees to signal that they might or could go to an employment tribunal. I come back to operating with integrity, doing the right thing, doing the lawful thing would always be my focus, not whether someone could take us to an employment tribunal.

My thought too.

Translation: tribunals tend to side with the law.

O.K! II won't post any more. I hadn't read your previous post, i was too busy reading the tweets and copying.

I think I'm a bit in love with NB. Integrity, impartiality, legality need to go on a T-shirt.

From TT:

from EW, says that threat of discrim claim was not an idle threat, and tribunals seem sympathetic to GC views, were you aware of this
NB I was not copied on this, even if she had said to me her view about a claim and an employment tribunal, it's not an exceptional occurrence for

employees to signal that they might or could go to an employment tribunal. I come back to operating with integrity, doing the right thing, doing the lawful thing would always be my focus, not whether someone could take us to an employment tribunal.
HH this was not just an

employee, a senior lawyer in Natural England
J witness has already said she didn't know
HH doc says CA has already alerted you to potential for claim or tribunal, you say she didn't expand on the threat
NB you were asking me about the view of NE, CA had alerted me to an EAT

on that topic and what it meant.
HH moving on to a new topic....
J let's have a short break, so we will have 15 minutes, back at 11:40.
Morning session part one ends.

@threadreaderapp unroll please

Is it really going to be another topic or is she just going to bang on about how his lived experience was denied over and over again?

Eh gads, not just an employee, a lawyer!

I loathe the repeated insinuations over these past days about Elspeth using her profession and the law for insidious and malevolent means.

Yes, the feelings and sensitivies of those with trans identities must over-rule every other consideration. That is the sum total of their position.

And that argument would absolutely have been enough pre Forstater.

Understood, and more people to c&p are very welcome, we just need to coordinate! Would you like to take the second morning session? If that doesn't suit, do speak up and volunteer another time. I don't think it's that anyone is desperate to do it, it's just that we need to keep the thread readable.

I'm going out shortly....so I can't commit.

And 'why did you decide not to break the law, NB?' (ad nauseum)

I'll carry on then.