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.

and "Legal" Gender? (that sounds like Stonewall Law)

You say you were closely following chat in Teams, chat became hostile, you almost intervened, what do you mean, is a more appropriate word upset and frustrated
NB the word I used was it was becoming problematic
J I can't find the word hostile
HH I can't find it, when you say

Hmm, so HH invents words that NB has said and then questions her on why she has used them? Then the judge has to intervene to point out NB has not used those words

I am not a lawyer, on a scale of 1-10 how embarrassing is this for a barrister?

HH do you accept this policy makes it unacceptable to call out GC views as hateful,
🙄
'calling out as hateful' is not the same as 'reporting to moderators' or 'alleging breach of code of conduct', which is what grown-ups in a professional setting do.

HH do you accept this policy makes it unacceptable to call out GC views as hateful, that exactly what it says
NB well yes

Was that an exasperated well yes by any chance?

From TT:

it's an email to Sarah Homer, Sarah McNally, Geoffrey Hoburton, who was he
NB I think he was a member of Sarah H's private office
HH network champion from RPA providing feedback, do you want to take a moment to read that, please read it and the attachment that follows

NB you mean attachment at 249?
HH right
[reading]

J did you see this at the time
NB I don't think so, I wasn't copied on it and it wasn't forwarded to me directly
J would you expect to know about it
NB I would expect that it would be at least mentioned but I don't recall it
[more reading]

HH accounts from various attendees at open board meeting, various descriptions, DEFRA as a demeaning workplace for anyone trans because of SEEN, so ashamed to be employed by DEFRA, feedback also recorded that SH supported colleagues who wanted to express GC views and supported

creation of network. You don't recall seeing this document but were you aware of those views?
NB yes
HH you were aware that trans staff were expressing feelings of nausea, anxiety, shame, feeling unsafe
NB yes, aware
HH you emailed Sarah Mc and Bal Toor, following day

You say you were closely following chat in Teams, chat became hostile, you almost intervened, what do you mean, is a more appropriate word upset and frustrated
NB the word I used was it was becoming problematic
J I can't find the word hostile
HH I can't find it, when you say
problematic they were expressing their views stridently because they were upset and frustrated
NB that is broadly my recollction
HH you also had feedback from RPA LBGT network champion
NB I don't recall that
HH let me correct myself you didn't personally receive it

Not coming across as well prepared, is she

I just want to remind people that in Forstater it was held that nobody has the right to be entirely insulated from legitimate views that may find upsetting or offensive.

And Forstater was praised in FWS by five justices of the Supreme Court as “an impressive and comprehensive judgment”.

So I think it will be a brave ET Judge, the very lowest rung of the judicial ladder, who tries to limit Forstater.

HH going to move on to new topic, para 14, attendance at LGBT+ open board meeting,
You say you were closely following chat in Teams, chat became hostile, you almost intervened, what do you mean, is a more appropriate word upset and frustrated
NB the word I used was it was becoming problematic
J I can't find the word hostile
HH I can't find it, when you say
problematic they were expressing their views stridently because they were upset and frustrated

HH Finally getting picked up on word choice.

How is HH allowed to just make stuff up? Isn't that against the whole point?

Barristers can't just manufacture quotes and attribute them to the witness, can they??

So I think it will be a brave ET Judge, the very lowest rung of the judicial ladder, who tries to limit Forstater.

Perhaps bold?

Yes could someone (with more brain power than me) explain it to me please? And unlike the Judge in this case, I do find analogies useful.

I am not a lawyer either but it means the judge is aware of the emotive language HH is using.

Once again: if you have the law is on your side pound the law; if you have the facts on your side pound the facts; and if don’t have the law or the facts on your side, pound the table.

I think that she might be working more from feeling and the firm knowledge that she is on the right side of history

HH you were aware that trans staff were expressing feelings of nausea, anxiety, shame, feeling unsafe

😶

From TT:

it looks as though from 1st sentence you were asking to see feedback from network, but you can't remember if you saw specific text
NB no
HH in that email, you describe speaking to SH after, people hold polarised views on sex and gender, not your role to reach a consensus but you

talk about this not in the context of a pc of GRA but as a difference of views
NB i want to establish a proper work place
HH Bal writes to say that we shouldn't be the referee and we need to end this
NB we are not here to take one side or the other, and we want a thriving

inclusive and respectful workplace.
J you would agree with what's said on that email, at the top of this email, need to end the debate, we are not the referee, etc
NB yes
HH look at context of ending this debate, also that day you had an email from Bal Toor, she sent an email

on the same subject, proposes that to end the debate that there should be a wider message from Sarah H, and involve EW. Did you agree to that proposal?
NB I don't recall
J what are you asking about
HH involving EW in drafting
J thank you

Well... If a judge can do it!

Slip rule? More like a Freudian slip rule!

HH you were aware that trans staff were expressing feelings of nausea, anxiety, shame, feeling unsafe

my next question would be: and how did that make you feel about their suitability to work in a profession setting, or indeed function in the real world?

the second limb of the test for harassment - whether in all the circumstances it is reasonable for the claimant to have felt harassed, will be important.

The whole department could have been upset about something to the point of armed insurrection but if it’s not reasonable for them to have felt that way, the claim will fail.

From TT:

HH and you said you don't recall if you endorsed or disagreed
NB no
HH you decided to involve the person who's post and views caused the distress to be involved the orgs response
NB you'll have to ask Bal, you may have been thinking of a clear statement of views, values etc

of SEEN network would be an appropriate step
HH your email, lets talk before we take action, were you referring to EW involvement
NB no I think I was talking in the round about the feedback, the response, the call that had been had
HH if we take email and the comment, take the

opportunity to have SH send wider message and involve EW in drafting, you agree that would be inappropriate
NB it would be unusual
HH why
NB SH hosted the call, and we didn't want to take sides, so either do both or know
J we know SH did publish a statement do you know if EW was

involved in drafting
NB I don't know
HH like inviting the subject of a harassment complaint to draft the orgs response
NB I set out what I imagine Bal was thinking
HH you are aware that ST attended that meeting and the day after that meeting presented a g/x

"you decided to involve the person who's post and views caused the distress to be involved the orgs response"

From TT:

NB yes
HH and expressed a concern about DEFRA position following meeting
NB yes
HH Mr Perry not here, so must put to you, it wasn't until 2 months later that ST g/x was acknowledged.
NB don't have knowledge can you point me to doc
HH do you know why it took so long to appoint

decision maker
NB I don't know
HH you issued 'lines to take' to senior CS employees you set out guidance consistency in messaging or engagement,
NB yes
HH in that email you are clearly setting out position that all senior leaders to take on SEEN launch
NB i was providing

info and starting to set those guardrails, it went to HR people, not leaders or line managers at that stage
HH the following day you posted in all company Y, it mirrors to a large extent, lines to take etc
NB yes it does
HH we have email to all directors, dg, ceos on 10th all

company Y post on 10th and then 4 days after Ed Perry acknowledges g/x and says he's decision maker
NB yes
HH email to Katherine Price, who is she?
NB I don't know who she is
HH forwarding your lines to take, says 'Ed may find this useful', have you seen this email before

.

From TT:

NB only in the bundle, I don't recollect being aware of it before
HH who was Wendy Humphrey?
NB she was in HR,
HH was anyone supporting Edd Perry?
NB Wendy was a caseworker
HH was this forward to Edd
NB I don't know
HH what level was Edd

NB I think a deputy director
HH so we know he saw this guidance
NB we don't know that
J this witness can't know that
J your Y message, announcing reopening of thread by EDW, is that correct?
NB yes
HH moving on to training session for civil servants,

This is a proposed agenda for EDI event.....let me check dates.....Dec 2022, and we can see in the 3rd para that Edd Perry is given as leadership example, recent decision maker in g/x and how it impacted his leadership, so on the agenda, EP was going to talk about his learnings

from C's g/x not the detail
NB yes that's what is referred to
HH and Bal Toor was also going to talk about Y debate and challenges, and briefing note she produced,....take a moment to read 585 and 586 please
[reading]

NB I think a deputy director
HH so we know he saw this guidance
NB we don't know that
J this witness can't know that

Happy sigh.