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.

I agree. She is a beacon of common sense. It's great to know that there are still people like that in positions of influence and authority, they haven't all contracted out their moral and ethical judgements to Stonewall, #bekind, etc.

edited to add that it would look good in French, wouldn't it
Intégrité, impartialité, légalité
though I'm not sure that intégrité is an exact translation of the concept of 'integrity' in English... I can be pedantic in a number of languages😁

Yes, this case, like so many others is a real live stream illustration of how rapidly the culture is shifting, and how much ground has been won. It must make it extremely difficult for the judges, though.

oh yes indeedy

She's been a great witness, and I think she is senior to SM in this investigation, is that corect?

Sorry I did a bad thing upthread, I edited a post to add to the content, and some of you had reacted already to the original post.
I know editing should only be for things like SPAG. Sorry. I have yellow-carded myself. And I promise I won't call on our President to have it rescinded😁

I can be pedantic in a number of languages

Which is one of the reasons we love you!

@fanOfBen , thank you for your sterling work this morning! It's very much appreciated.

I don't want to call NB a dead horse, but HH's flogging of her is tedious, when she clearly did her job with integrity and respect for the law.

Ha! I wondered why I had 'agreed' to you being pedantic 😂!

NB is the head HR honcho of DEFRA group.

A big cheese.

awwwwww thanks😍

Intégrité,
probité, impartialité, légalité

I'm going for probité instead of intégrité, I think Intégrité just means wholeness in French, without any moral overtones.
Farine intégrale =wholemeal flour, for instance, not flour with high morals.

There, that was a welcome break from HH's questioning, wasn't it?
A sort of palate cleanser before the next course😁

I too understand that she is attempting to represent her client but surely there is a line between representing your client to the best of your ability and misrepresenting the law?

And now I must eat cheese

<shakes first at Justabaker>

Particularly, what pushback has there been on what seems to be a casting of this case as one of protecting belief versus protecting a 'lived experience', (namely preventing discrimination and harassment relating to gender reassignment)

If I remember correctly, NC brought up in a x-exam last week (of ST or ED? don't remember which) that TW as well as women both have a 'lived experience' and beliefs about themselves and their social situation, so this framing of 'ST cannot leave her existence out of the workplace but you lot could just STFU without that being a real detriment to you' is just plain wrong

I was wondering about that too...

I'd definitely offer you a job.

I've only looked at discrimination / harrassment with regards to my own disability so I could be wrong.

I can't see how ST was discriminated against either in a direct or indirect way. He would need to demonstrate being treated differently or in a position that makes their treatment indirect discrimination because of their unique personal circumstances.

It can't be discrimination as DEFRA didn't carry out their processes with SEEN differently because no other group had more favourable treatment i.e. they didn't close down other groups or do a different assessment on other groups that would have put ST in a less favourable position.

Not sure how he can argue indirect discrimination? The menopause group I am guessing would have reacted the same to any man who wanted to join and not just TIM.

Harrassment isn't going to work at a guess because the wearing of a SEEN Lanyard and the discussions in the group are all covered by their PC. They weren't doing it to harrass anyone let alone ST. The Lanyard doesn't say what he thinks it says or represents. If ST doesn't like the content of their posts then he doesn't need to read them.

It's obviously uncomfortable for ST to acknowledge that people he works with have their own protected beliefs but that's going to be the same for people with strong religious beliefs. Is it the same as complaints about people wearing a cross to work but if different DEFRA groups were different Lanyards (like PRIDE ones) then it shows he is not disciminated against.

I don't know where the law stands on how the process of dealing with his grievance stands though. If it takes that long for all their grievance proceedures take that long then he is not being discriminated against. Is it harrassment?

Others will have a better grasp of the law.

An Equality Impact Evaluation would also look at how the policy affected women.

You cannot believe this is true, surely?

Mmmm.

From TT:

Morning break 7 July, Tempest v DEFRA and Rural Payments Agency will resume not before 11:40.
^Part 2 will follow from here. QT has background, links etc. t.co/IAH1rGnyBR^

Participants and observers being admitted, we will resume shortly, HH x-exam of Nicola Bettesworth of DEFRA.

HH going to move on to new topic in a moment but one topic we discussed this morning, you thought there were 2 gxs in addition to ST, at what number of gxs would there be a collective g/x procedure,
NB inaudible
HH look at 129, we've already looked at not from CA on the same day

she sent you some draft Y guidance,
NB yes
HH guidance begins at 131 in bundle, if you take a moment to read bottom para of 131 going into 132
NB done
HH that guidance, in part 2 bullet points, it's not acceptable to characterise expression of legally protected beliefs etc it is

all geared to enabling GC views to expressed on an open platform
NB I'm not sure its entirely geared, given timing we would have been actively considering GC expression, prior to this we hadn't had any sig difficulties with Y to necessitate guidance so there is a link

HH draft guidance makes fleeting ref to EA, it's about putting a shield around GC views in the workplace
NB this draft is to put guard rails in place to operate in a way that aligns with our codes of conducts
HH puts guard rails around those who wish to express GC views but does

And.... The flogging of the (reasonable) horse continues...

I'm so bored.

@MyAmpleSheep What are your thoughts on this?

I am loving this witness.
'but sad trans...'
'other people have rights that need considered too'
Repeat ad nauseam

This really made me laugh!