Thread by @tribunaltweets

The employment tribunal of Samantha Tempest vs DEFRA & Rural Payments Agency will continue today, 2 July with evidence expected from Emma Dunn. Our coverage of the first morning session will be here.

Our previous coverage, plus relevant publicly available documents can be found on our Substack here:
open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…

Tempest (the claimant or C) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene.

We are a small group of volunteer citizen journalists. We receive no payment for our work. We accept paid subscriptions to our Substack to fund necessary expenses including travel, legal fees and digital costs.
Please consider subscribing.

A reminder that our work is not a verbatim account or transcript of proceedings. We make our best efforts to report what is said and do so in good faith.

Earlier sessions have included discussions of pronouns and how the C is to be referred to. The judge has issued directions. We have copied this from @JRLevinsLaw X post, therefore in the public domain.

@JRLevinsLaw A personal post by one of the co-chairs of SEEN, has been frequently mentioned. The images below are available from @JRLevinsLaw and on the SEEN crowdfunder, therefore public domain.

@JRLevinsLaw Abbreviations:
PQ – Anonymised claimant, no longer a party
ST/C – Samantha Tempest, Claimant
DEFRA/R1 – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, first Respondent
RPA/R2 – Rural Payments Agency, second Respondent
RS – First and second Respondents

@JRLevinsLaw SEEN/IP – Sex Equality and Equity Network – Civil Service
EW – Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley, co-chair of SEEN
NC – Naomi Cunningham, barrister for SEEN as Intervenor
J – Employment judge SD Robertson
P1 – Panel member 1
P2 – Panel member 2
AL – Alex Line, barrister for Rs

@JRLevinsLaw JRL – JR Levins, solicitors for SEEN
HH – Helen Hogben, barrister for claimant
AB – Anna Bond, solicitor for claimant
AM – Andreas Mueller
GC – gender critical or sex realist views
GI – gender identity

@JRLevinsLaw TW – transwoman, a man claiming the protected characteristic of gender assignment TM – transman, woman claiming the protected characteristic of gender assignment
INT – Intervenor
ETBB – Equal Treatment Bench Book
GRC – Gender recognition certificate
PC – Protected characteristic

@JRLevinsLaw GRA – PC of gender reassignment
DD – Direct discrimination
MLF – My learned friend
CA – Caroline Airs
ED – Emma Dunn
NB – Nicola Bettesworth
VE – Viva Engage
CM – Carly Manning
IAO – Information Asset Owners
NE – Natural England

@JRLevinsLaw OH – Occupational health
G – Grievance
GA – Grievance appeal
GI – Grievance investigation/investigator
SGI – Second grievance investigation
SGA – Second grievance appeal
WFTCHTJ - waiting for the conference host to join (waiting for video conference to begin)

The Tribunal is expected to resume at 10 am.

We have a view of the empty tribunal room on the video conference. Should be starting soon.

The participants and observers are entering the tribunal room.

J good morning everyone, we're ready to start, we're going to hear from ED.
HH can I ask if you've got the statements with the page numbers on them this morning
J yes, leading ED through the oath,
ED affirms
HH morning, are you miss, mrs, ms
ED - mrs

HH - can you find your ws in the bundle, should be in lever arch file
ED an awful lot of files and I don't know what any of them are....Int supp bundle...
HH - take your time, it's a smaller bundle,
ED oh they might be lose, 1 of 5, oh it's this one

HH I'm sorry, I don't know what page
J second tab
ED I have it
HH go to final page of that section, how many paras
ED. 48
HH is that your signature, have you read it, is it true
ED yes
HH AL will have some qs for you

AL you are an employee of the Land Registry (LR)
ED yes HM LR
AL and during the period concerned
ED for 30 years
AL and you are chair of AG (a:gender)
ED co chair,
AL were you sole chair during the period concerned
ED yes
AL AG is xgov network
ED its existence predates your

time as chair
AL predates you but Cabinet Office responsible for setting up
ED I don't know
AL in your capacity as chair would you raised issues with CO (Cabinet Office)
ED yes
AL so CO responsible for gov and regulation of AG
ED correct

AL you explain in WS function of AG, for T, IS, NB, etc.
ED yes
AL and allies,
ED yes
AL you share a belief that T people should not be discriminated against
ED yes
AL - do you disagree with view that sex is immutable and binary (your personal capacity)

ED I do
AL does that represent the view of your members, majority
ED yes, I believe so
AL so do you stand in opposition to SEEN because of GC views
ED a little more complicated, I don't think I stand in opposition, I don't have objections to staff networks, I don't have a

personal animosity to anyone for views
AL but you share a view that GC views should not be expressed in the workplace
ED yes
J can I clarify
ED the words 'binary and immutable' is what we find most offensive
AL in that SEEN promotes that, you stand in opposition to that and you

have used AG to oppose
ED we stand to protect T colleagues in the workplace
AL because you believe that GC views undermine T people in the workplace, you use AG to undermine SEEN
ED I surveyed by network and I'm representing the views of my network
AL are you referring to the

AG survey?
ED among other things yes
AL do you accept that DEFRA and the RPA do not advocate that AG should not exist, let me revise it was a negative proposition - neither DEFRA or RPA suggest that AG cannot exist
ED - no they do not

AL they don't seek to ban in DEFRA & RPA
ED AG is cross gov, we don't seek to set up branches that would silo members all over again
AL you've decided not to do that but no on has told you you can't
ED no, nobody has told me I can't
AL - Rs accept SEEN as x-gov network

ED yes
AL treating SEEN same as AG
ED - yes they are
AL your WS says AG to support T, allies, IS and so they don't suffer discrimination. Can I ask you to find part 1 of the Bundle, page 353
ED oh this is the one with the loose pages
AL don't think you'll need those put them

aside. What we have here is draft constitution of SEEN, can you see their mission statement - to support equity between women and men, won't read out the rest but refs to sex based rights and the EA.
ED that's right
AL both AG and SEEN share a common theme, they rely on EA to

support their members
ED [no response audible]
AL they both have members with a pc,
ED I would quibble with that
AL let me try again, your members are covered by GRA, theirs by belief
ED some of my members might not have a pc
AL - different pcs but networks about sharing a pc

J which pc
AL religion and belief
J okay, just trying to be clear
AL both groups seek to challenge and prevent unfairness to members
ED I would say they go beyond that
AL both rec by Cabinet Office
ED yes they are
AL both have websites
ED yes

AL both have lanyards, posters, run events
ED yes have in the past
AL both have published articles
ED not sure AG have published articles
AL do you use gov communication tools, including the intranets
ED we use the internet, because there is not x-gov intranet

AL do you use social media
J - clarifies intra vs inter
AL do you use Yammer
ED have in the past
AL do you use 3rd party social media, X for example
ED our X account is shuttered
J - did you use at time of events
ED yes
J and Yammer, etc
ED yes

AL at the top, AG logo, this is from the AG X account, would you have posted this
ED RT of a news item
AL it's clear that the news item described the GC movement in a way that associates it with genocide
ED that's the view of the institute
AL you are forwarding to all of your

followers
ED not forwarding, resharing, we are allowed to share news items
AL do you agree that would be offensive to someone of a GC mindset
ED if they read the article carefully, they might not find it offensive
J seeking clarification

ED they might object to being part of a wider movement that they don't understand and not everyone taking part in the movement is doing so in bad faith.
[Lemkin Institute]
AL it is associating GC people with genocide
ED it is associating GC views, not individuals
AL did you make

that clear
ED we're not allowed to comment
AL back to WS, remind you what it says
ED yes
AL para 13, GC views protected but just protected as beliefs, go on to discuss expression. Do you accept that a belief can be lawfully expressed.
ED I accept that some may be lawfully

expressed
AL you say that 'sex is binary' in the workplace, is offensive because it conflicts with your lived experienced, so do I take it that you do not think that is a lawful expression of views
ED no, it is not lawful, that is not the convo they are are seeking to have, they

want to harass and offend.
AL you say 'purely to harass and offend' does that at least depend on context and facts and circumstances
ED no it does not, would you like me to give you an analogy to explain it
AL no I am satisfied with your answer.

AL you say that GI,
ED sorry
AL we discussed this previously
ED I just don't understand what you mean when you say it
J intervenes, gives explanation
AL the belief that sex is not binary
ED - okay
AL can I get to the end of the sentence

J please wait until the end of the question, we know that some feel strongly
AL I think what you're saying that you and people like you have a pc of GRA
ED perhaps not me
AL you don't need to rely on belief section of EA
ED it's an inherent characteristic
J I want to understand

and use your exact words
ED There is an inherent physical characteristic and a PC of beliefs
AL so you're saying there's no clash of beliefs
ED there is a clash of beliefs
AL if there is a clash of beliefs, is it lawful to say that sex is not binary
ED it's a fact

I am living proof that sex is not binary.
AL you accept that not everyone would see it that way and it is lawful to express that sex is binary
ED no I don't, it doesn't add anything to the convo, it's not the debate we are trying to have in the workplace
AL we look at 2 sides

of debate, you say lawful to express one side of debate but not the other
ED that is correct
AL and illogical, saying one side cannot speak
ED its the impact of the speech, when they say sex is binary they are saying something about my body, my body isn't what I know it to be

Saying sex is not binary says nothing about them. It doesn't hurt them.
AL its illogical because if stifle debate of one side where differences lie and where common ground can be found
ED if that's we were doing yes, we are trying to have a debate just not the debate that SEEN

are trying to have.
J is the debate that SEEN is trying to have?
ED binary and immutable
J the point being put to you, saying that is not a lawfully expressible position, closes down any possibility to find common ground
AL - how do people find common ground to work together

harmoniously if they can't express views
ED I don't need to hear their views to be able to work harmoniously with them
AL if people can't express GC views in the workplace, no one will know that they are GC, so you want them to keep quiet and accept your orthodoxy

ED I want them to not cause harm to me and my members and I want everyone to acknowledge that fact
AL - pauses for J
AL we ref'd early the AG survey that you did, qs on that. You say in WS, confirm that you got 167 responses to survey,
ED yes

AL there are 1,700 member of AG, I understand, can take you to Int bundle, page 566.
ED finds
AL increased membership to over 1,700,
ED members and allies
J be precise about what you are asking
AL can you help us with the distinctions between the 2

ED we have full members and we have ally members, allies are friends family loved ones supporters
AL can you help us with breakdown between the 2
ED no I can't
AL survey to full members only?
ED yes
AL can you give us a sense of number of members

ED I could try and find out
AL tens, hundreds, ?
ED in the hundreds
AL so 167 replies is a small proportion of the members, you haven't confirmed numbers, what proportion of the members is that, you're the chair
ED its special category data, I pay no attention to who is a full

member, I don't handle any of that, it's dealt with by my team.
J can I just say that the hearing is being recorded can I ask you to speak to the room, not to AL,
ED should I speak to you
J just to the room
AL if it helps, I'm not offended if you don't look at me

AL taking ED to bundle docs,
[bundle shuffling]
ED okay
AL I understand that these are from the AG survey, are these the only pages
ED these are the pages that we put up on our website, there's raw data in a vault somewhere
AL the 3 qs, the only qs asked
ED yes

AL do you accept that they are leading qs
ED no
AL if you ask a T or I person about whether they think that the prop that sex is binary and immutable, well you are asking a closed shop, you can guess what they might say
ED we're asking them if the expression of GC views is

harassment
AL the nature of survey, doesn't allow for any qualitative data, does it
ED it is in the comments on the next page
AL it is selected comments,
ED of course selected, raw data in a vault, I can get it for you
AL we are beyond supplemental bundles

AL the people answering these questions...
ED they are intersectional feminists
AL what does that mean
ED they are people who include trans non binary in their feminism
AL of course they expressed these views, you knew what their answers would be

ED no we didn't, we could have had a survey where everyone was fine with GC views in the workplace
AL how many of respondents were in DEFRA or RPA
ED don't know
AL how many members do you have in DEFRA or RPA
ED don't know
J they would have to be civil servants.....

ED the rules have recently changed
J under the rules at the time
ED some public servants could join
AL moving back to your witness statement, discussing AG, we are single xgov body, other networks operate the same, you seem to be suggesting that there is something wrong about

SEEN having a DEFRA network as well as xgov
ED its an outlier
AL anything wrong with that
ED do I say that in my WS
AL what do you thing
ED no, not wrong
AL are there other similar networks or chapters
ED I think that SEEN has applied to have further specific dept networks

[bundle shuffling]
AL ED does not seem to have the right bundle,
J I can't help with that, it's the parties bundle
AL not suggesting that,
J if you're going to ask about that, you need to make sure that she has the correct bundle
AL not trying to be controversial

I've made numerous refs to it, but no one seems to have dealt with it. HH - do you have a hard copy.
HH - no I don't
J what are you wanting to refer to in it
AL a para in a CS i/x report I want to refer to, I wasn't meaning to waste the Tribunal's time,
J - where is it?

AL you don't seem to have the correct bundle either,
J let's take a break and find out, this is an illustration of how this case has been prepared, not making accusations, it's not appropriate for us to thrash around trying to find the correct bundle.

AL I will have to move on if we can't find, but it is something that will have to be before the tribunal and I'm looking to the C to remedy this
J docs disclosed by C,
HH I will do my level best to sort this out, I'm having my own technical difficulties, Adobe has crashed

and the wheel of death on my computer.
J let's break, it's a bit early, I will see we can find it, can someone give me any clues about when it was sent.
Let's take this break and see if we can find it.
J - gives usual instructions to witness.
Morning break.
Back at 11:30 am

@threadreaderapp unroll please.