Maya's tribunal next Tuesday (21 and 22 March)

Assuming that CGD win and damages are awarded based on MF only having an expectation of a junior/mid role, how much will they save compared to the costs of making this hearing be necessary? The costs involved to get to and through the hearing must be tens of thousands.

That's nothing to say of the fact that CGD might lose, the amount of time and effort needed to prepare for this from people in CGD, and potential, further, negative publicity.

There's something wrong with the decision-making at CGD. Doesn't inspire confidence in terms of their advocacy, policy, and advice work.

That's exactly what I was trying to explain to a friend yesterday nauticant. How much are they squabbling over here versus cost of legal team? Are they hoping for a desultory payout as proof of some sort of moral victory even though they lost the actual case?

Recalling my impression of some of the CDG witnesses who gave evidence at the merits hearing it does not surprise me that here we are again.

BC: Why whenever we match people's actual salaries to the indicative salaries in the Gates grant, they're broadly in line, but when it comes to MF she's put in the Gates grant for double what you're now saying she's worth?

PM: I wasn't involved in the Gates grant.

Ooh, Ben are you using banned pronouns?

Are they hoping for a desultory payout as proof of some sort of moral victory even though they lost the actual case?

I think that's it LipbalmOrKnickers. "We might have lost that part but this part, which is surely very important, shows that Maya Forstater was WRONG WRONG WRONG.

How cool was that 'alright' from Ben??

Looking forward to final submissions!

I didn't quite catch what PM said just before Ben's 'alright'...

Did anyone else hear what she said?

That's exactly what I was trying to explain to a friend yesterday nauticant. How much are they squabbling over here versus cost of legal team? Are they hoping for a desultory payout as proof of some sort of moral victory even though they lost the actual case?

I imagine so. TRAs use the fact that Allison Bailey didn't get a large payout to mock her win against GCC so it would go down well both internally and externally I'm sure.

It's just striking me that effectively the law is so out of reach for low paid women (like me). The level of stress and risk just wouldn't be worth it for someone working in Tescos if the award is only based on your pay. Why bother?

I wonder how many women have lost their jobs because of their belief in biological reality who just can't even begin to think about bringing a case.

We are fortunate that Maya was in a position to do so.

The have dropped PM in the brown stuff from a great height. ”Have a look at this CV and our “new” pay policy and using your expertise decide where you would put them. Great, you can go to ET and confirm that the pay should be X not Y.”

I cannot see how CDG can win this argument. Trying to “downgrade” Maya’s role and experience is insulting.

The way they operate pay may be fine for the US but not UK.

I would suggest as a minimum CDG need:

• published org structure showing Maya’s role and the withdrawn role/same role she was due to get.
• JD for roles in the structure (for comparison)
• Analytical Job Evaluation to establish the “level” of roles in the organisation structure. This is about ensuring you identify roles of equal weight.
• Pay Structure that links to org structure
• Pay policy
• Benchmarked pay ranges.

I doubt they have most of this and if they have it would support Maya’s position.

I see it as trying to punish an uppity woman who won't comply.

It must be the case that the cost of their legal team (not to mention the reputational cost) must be many multiples even the best case payout for Maya.

It's about putting other women off doing the same as well, I'd imagine. Sort of a 'yes we really do have deep pockets enough to be willing to lose THIS much money just to make it difficult for women to speak the truth, and we're going to drag you through THIS much stress, and uncertainty and character assassination'.....

Definitely CGD still feeling they are the wronged party.

Maybe it's all about internal comms, that all of this is being done to send the message to the clearly fragile, massively entitled, and, in some cases, unhinged CGD staff that even though the organisation lost it fought its hardest against that evil woman.

Maybe it's best to view CGD as a care in the community project.

Who are CGD's solicitors? Surely they would have seen PM's witness statement, asked her a few questions and recommended that CGD chance tack.

PM must feel as if she has been hung out to dry (and she wasn't even there at the time).

and she wasn't even there at the time).
This is exactly why she has been put up as a witness. She can honestly say 'I don't know ' to any difficult questions.

Olivia Dobbie now doing the closing arguments on behalf of CGD.

OD: (paraphrasing) MF's hurt feelings, as can be seen from contemporaneous messages with her friends it, can be seen that MF wasn't much bothered by what had happened.

OD: distinction between cannot work in their chosen carry or chooses to pivot into a new career. (This is about setting the level at which injury to feelings is set.)

OD: Since MF was planning for the future she wasn't withdrawn after leaving CGD.

OD is making the case that where MF's case has shifted, what she was saying or claiming closer to the time is more accurate that what she's saying now.

OD's submissions on hurt feelings are plausible.

So because she didn't huddle weeping under the duvet and channelled her energy into action, she wasn't depressed enough. And she could have just gone and got another job anyway.