I suppose it could be argued he's giving them all the space and time they need to fuck their own case up. I would think that might make sense if I thought the J was reliably logical but I don't trust him.
But whether I trust him or not, so far, I think it is objectively observable that they have not presented a strong case. They are depending wholly on the idea that just saying sex sometimes matters is creating a hostile environment. This I believe the C believes but his PC of GRA does not protect him from being a time-wasting arsehole which is the case as it currently stands.
Case so far:
SEEN gets set up after agreement by CO.
CA and NB understand that those who don't subscribe to GI have not been heard and that it is legitimate for SEEN network to exist so folk can talk about the material reality of sex and the impact that has, such as pay gap, oppression, prejudice, SSSs etc.
They understand the law does not not mean by manifestation that all discussion should be banned rather that it should be grown up and respectful.
SEEN sets out its stall.
ST rabble rouses and posts insulting and derogatory comments in response.
These are taken down as is the original post.
Much discussion ensues at senior level. Some argue that SEEN should be banned, others recognise that would be discriminatory.
SEEN are told to edit out the invitation to chat as that is being seen by TRAs as debating their existence. Post goes back up, more vitriol, post removed again, SEEN cross.
Whilst discussions are ongoing about how to manage TRAs in the workplace fairly without discriminating against SEEN, codes of conduct are reviewed and updated, moderation is restructured, Yammer moves to Viva Engage which can silo networks more effectively.
SEEN corrects misrepresentation of EQa and PCs in training slide. Nother furore in response. Claims that this amounts to denial of GRA as PC.
Not good enough for ST who continues to insist SEEN removed. Starts a g/x. Gets to work from home before going off sick. OH tell him not to look for things to be offended by but he is engaging throughout with all manner of things.
Some senior staff agree with ST. He is encouraged to believe SEEN will be banned.
Don't know the outcome of initial grievance but think it not upheld so ST appeals. Sympathetic appeal lead consults Top HR boss who advises not legal to ban SEEN.
Recommendations from JH outcome letter can't be fully implemented as she has ignored top HR boss.
ST under the impression he has won. Learns that not all recommendations will be implemented, demands a review of appeal.
Appeal reviewed, nothing found wanting in decision not to implement recommendations.
ET pretty much in progress Includes AM and EW and SEEN. .
Claim against EW and AM dropped and against SEEN dropped no doubt because claims were very weak as the nasty stuff didn't come from them but from TRAs.
Robin White also no longer legal rep?
In claim agains Rs ST claims lots of moderation of TRAs but not of SEEN amounted to hostile working environment and harassment.
The only chance HH has of making a case is to take the position that GC is not WORIADS which is essentially what you are claiming if no manifestation is seen to be reasonable.
J has tried to avoid philopsophical debate and he can't go against Forstater ruling so if he is to find for ST he has to find that the manifestation was not well managed by Rs and I think that is kinda impossible. In the sea of TRA tantrums there was one post that was left up when it might not have been when under review. That's it. Other than GC is evil.
I've probably got some of that in the wrong order and missed bits out but that is the sense I make of it so far.