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.

J: How was this working out, was there working parties was there correspondence, documents, reports or assessments?
NB the EDI team is 6 people, this was there day to day activity, conversations, emails between them, convos with inclusive practice teams, convos with other colleagues in other orgs part of the same EDI community

HH should be careful.

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

Careful what you wish for.

[The announcement of cross-gov SEEN] "Immediately provoked responses in support of trans colleauges"

Including ST starting a pile-on. Interesting choice of word, "provoked".

"NB we expected a reaction but we expected that employees would behave in accordance with CoC and EDI policies"

(...but they didn't.)

From TT:

and went to the core of their being
HH and yet knowing those views, at that point you undertook no risk assessment of dept SEEN network
NB I'm not certain that we filled out a formal risk assessment but were we alive to the risks and issues - very much so. Very similar to the

issues once the xgov SEEN was established.
HH at that point, bearing in mind continuing duty, you didn't do a equality impact assessment, you didn't take stock then
NB I don't know the detail of the work done in my team, it is correct to say that we were keeping the position

under constant review. In looking at the issue our job in HR is to consider all elements of the law and to ensure that we are sort of applying all dimensions of the law and not be one dimensional.
HH you say under constant review, but none in evidence vs the PSED

NB I use the word review to cover thinking about it, considering it, looking at our policies, it was part of our enduring day to day activity, there was a period where this sort of matter of gender critical/gender identity was consuming the HR EDI team. We did not consider in

a light touch way, it was very absorbing.
J how was this working out, was there working parties was there correspondence, documents, reports or assessments?
NB the EDI team is 6 people, this was there day to day activity, conversations, emails between them, convos with inclusive

practice teams, convos with other colleagues in other orgs part of the same EDI community
HH the decision to permit DEFRA SEEN was based on the view that refusal would be less favourable treatment with those of GC beliefs
NB yes, and against a backdrop that DEFRA had a culture

I would not dispute that TW have a lived experience, cause every human being has got one.
But HH is trying to find arguments for why TW wants should be prioritised, by twisting the law in a way that seems new (to me at least.)

Unless you’re the NHS…

HH the decision to permit DEFRA SEEN was based on the view that refusal would be less favourable treatment with those of GC beliefs
NB yes, and against a backdrop that DEFRA had a culture of networks and community groups and we valued those networks
HH the decision to permit them to be established was because it would be discriminatory not to, no consideration if discrim against those the GRA PC.
NB we considered and weighed up all those elements, we seek to......

I really hope NC asks some questions that make it chrystal clear that NB was following the law and that HH's entire line of questioning is implying that NB should have acted illegally because not doing so makes some trans people sad.

.....operate as lawful body, particularly important when you are a gov body.

@Shortshriftandlethal are you systematically taking over, in which case I'll retire? It's confusing to have two people c&ping but I don't want to stop if you're just dropping in.

For someone who has lived experience of so much denial of his existence, ST is taking up rather a lot of everyone else's space, isn't he.

J put to you more specifically, did you consider whether GC views to expressed via DEFRA SEEN would be discrim to trans colleagues,
NB we considered
J any documentary evidence of that decison
NB don't know
J if you did consider, what the result of that consideration, discriminatory against trans colleagues or not

HH the decision to permit DEFRA SEEN was based on the view that refusal would be less favourable treatment with those of GC beliefs

Good heavens, she has 'deviated into sense'😄

Really sorry to do this, but I have just jumped into this series of threads and was wondering if there is a recent, factual report of how things have been playing out in court? (Apologies if this is a question asked times and again - there are just too many posts to catch up with!!)

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)

Isn't this a false characterisation, since the GC people in SEEN will see it as a case of protecting the 'lived experience' of being a woman (namely preventing discrimination and harassment relating to sex)?

Belief is equally in play on both sides, surely, and determines the perception of categories of alleged discrimination? Is the SEEN side articulating that fully?

Apologies for the newbie questions.

Such as shame that NC cannot cross examine HH

NB my team would have recognised the impact on trans colleagues and allies but on balance we concluded that our responsibility to comply with EA to allow people to express beliefs was an important dimension, we didn't believe that existence of SEEN and GC views was necessarily discrimination, the risk was the way in which it would be manifested. The mitigation was that we expected our colleagues to behave in a professional manner, free from bullying harassment or discrimination.

[I'm carrying on for now because @Shortshriftandlethal hasn't promised to keep doing it!]
From TT:

of networks and community groups and we valued those networks
HH the decision to permit them to be established was because it would be discriminatory not to, no consideration if discrim against those the GRA PC.
NB we considered and weighed up all those elements, we seek to

operate as lawful body, particularly important when you are a gov body. That consideration was how we approached the recognition of DEFRA SEEN. Against a backdrop that SEEN had be recognised as xdept network.
J put to you more specifically, did you consider whether GC views to

expressed via DEFRA SEEN would be discrim to trans colleagues,
NB we considered
J any documentary evidence of that decison
NB don't know
J if you did consider, what the result of that consideration, discriminatory against trans colleagues or not

NB my team would have recognised the impact on trans colleagues and allies but on balance we concluded that our responsibility to comply with EA to allow people to express beliefs was an important dimension, we didn't believe that existence of SEEN and GC views was necessarily

@MyThreeWords if nothing else Nick Wallis has done a good blog summary!

Eta: a Tempest in Leeds, it's called

Very quick reply, but hope it's useful:
this was a very instructive exchange
HH your answer there - describing the issue as polarised perspectives in the workplace, you were looking at this as competing beliefs, not beliefs vs lived experience of other
NB No we were looking at this from the perspective of the law, as an employer, where people could feel safe and where CoC and Nolan Principles (NP) were embodied in the work place. It wasn't 2 dimensional, we were thinking about if from a broad perspective

HH follow up on judge's question - did you form a view that it was discriminatory, you were more concerned and exclusively that you would protect yourself against a claim of discrim on philosophical belief and did not concern yourself with the trans people in the org
NB I do not agree with that

To be fair to HH she is probably doing the best she can with the minimal useful points that she has.

Something troubling me a bit about how SEEN is treated in the solution that management have found to the issue of a:gender members disappearing in a puff of smoke each time GI is mentioned.

My understanding is the the solution adopted is that the SEEN grouping has been made private and messages by them are not broadcast across the internal network.

Has the same sanction been applied to a:gender and their messaging?

Does the same sanction need to be applied to all groups? Disability?

If not then why not? Surely to treat one group differently is bias?

NB my team would have recognised the impact on trans colleagues and allies but on balance we concluded that our responsibility to comply with EA...

😏

From TT:

discrimination, the risk was the way in which it would be manifested. The mitigation was that we expected our colleagues to behave in a professional manner, free from bullying harassment or discrimination.
HH follow up on judge's question - did you form a view that it was

discriminatory, you were more concerned and exclusively that you would protect yourself against a claim of discrim on philosophical belief and did not concern yourself with the trans people in the org
NB I do not agree with that
HH a couple of qs about continuing nature of PSED

NB at time org was making decision to allow DEFRA SEEN, you'll agree there was evidence of distress to trans colleagues
J when are we talking about
HH announcement of x dept SEEN in Nov 22,
NB yes
HH so across that period you were receiving numerous grievances from trans

I don't see how the judge can find against DEFRA - because in doing so he would himself be taking a position. Their role was to balance the conflicting rights of employees to express themselves in the workplace.

We of course have heard little about how people with GC views might feel invalidated or threatened. Maybe NC will do a job on that?