Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to the afternoon session on day 6 of the employment tribunal in the case of Maya Forstater versus CGD(Europe), CGD & Masood Ahmed.

This morning's tweet thread is at threadreaderapp.com/thread/1503306….
Tweet threads from the first week of the hearing collated at hiyamaya.net/livetweets-fro…

Abbreviations:
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for
MF = Maya Forstater – Claimant
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents
EJ = Employment judge, leading the three-person panel hearing the case.
Panel = any one of the three members

CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1
CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2
MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE – Respondent 3

When we resume, we are expecting further evidence from Luke Easley (LE), Director of Finance and Administration / HR Director of GCD (based in Washington but giving evidence within the UK)

We resume.
EJ: asks non-speakers to mute.
EJ: reminds of reporting restrictions - names and email addresses of complainants 1-4 cannot be reported in Great Britain

BC: Confirms that LE wasn't privy to discussions about expectations re claimant's work, conditions etc?
LE: yes, can only comment on generalities
LE: says MF was invited to attend but not required to attend ...
OD: Do you mean offices or lunches?

BC: ALL staff including claimant free to attend offices but no fixed hours?
LE: yes
BC: the lunches - MF in same position as other people?
LE: No. others required to attend: MF only invited, not required

BC: and re desks. Nobody in London had allocated desk. All hot-desking.
LE: No personal knowledge of that.

BC:2016-2017 claimant was working on project which was groundwork for a later and big project
LE: yes

BC: This is proposal to funder?
LE: Yes

BC: First output to be CGD paper, outlining the larger project. This is presented to funder as a CGD project? Not joint CGD/MF?
LE: yes

BC: And CGD does not present it as a partnership with claimant? and this is standard CGD practice?
LE: Colleagues later better positioned to answer that

BC: Claimant had a contract in 2017 for this first stage?
LE: yes
BC: And it was with CGD (not CGD(E)) because prospective funder was in US?
LE: yes

BC: and that is typical? contract would be CGD or CGD Europe depending on funder?
LE: can't really say whether or not

BC: Let's look at the "One CGD" principle. We see bullet saying no expectation that a "European" project done in Europe or vice versa. Talks of cross-geography re project work
LE: General agreement

BC: Looking at that initial contract. Clear MF must do the work personally?
LE: Says she can reassign if she gets written consent.
BC: Subject to that theoretical point, we note clause saying expectation is person named will do the work.
LE: It's not theoretical

BC: What I mean is, the point is there as it *could* happen, but there is an understanding that the claimant will do the work.
OD: LE cannot comment on anyone else's state of mind

BC: Let me phrase. People that take out the contracts do the work?
LE: because they want to'
EJ: Let me ask, as it ever happened that somebody else did the work?
LE: I do know it happened once.

BC: Contract describes work expected, in some detail. Contract is clear this is a CGD (not CGDEurope) programme?
LE: Yes

BC: Contract also clear this is groundwork for future multiyear project?
LE: yes
BC: Contract includes fundraising, networking, project-building. Core to any researcher position?

BC: Core to a STAFF researcher position?
LE: [Pause] yes.
BC: But not core to an independent researcher role?
LE: I think sometimes they might do some of it.

BC: Oct 2017 Ms VJ [main co-worker with MF] saying that taking MF on as a staff member / fellow tied to the funding coming in.
LE: different emphasis, more it could not happen before.

BC: you seem to have inferred that MF expected a senior fellowship and have concentrated your statement on this. But cannot see claimant has ever claimed a particular title. Are there differerences?
LE: yes

BC: for research associates MA's personal input not needed?
LE: yes. MA involvement would increase with seniority of role expected.

BC: Your statement says opportunistic hires are occasional. Can we say route from associate to fellow is frequent?
LE: No
BC: 3 examples. This is proposal to Gates Foundation 2018. Late in process. Nancy Lee is visiting fellow at this time?
LE: yes

BC: Now see email a month later. Nancy Lee now Senior [something] Fellow. It is standard always to use people's current titles?
LE: don't know.
BC: We see Nancy Lee going from visiting to staff fellow. I suggest this is a well trodden path.

LE: Well yes Nancy Lee did it, that doesn't mean well-trodden.

BC: Budget overview 2019 for CGD(E) we see proposal to make Michaela Gavas a Senior Policy Fellow - she was at that time a visiting fellow?
LE: Yes,
BC: Later we see this described as a promotion?
LE: yes.

BC: I suggest this is another example of a common route? A promotion?
LE: Well it happened in that case. I would not have used the words myself.

BC: Back to Gates proposal July - Sanjeev Gupta is a visiting fellow. Now we see SPG meeting agenda for Dec 2018, Mr Gupta to be promoted to Senior Policy Fellow, that did happen?
LE: Yes

BC: We have seen 3 examples just in the papers relating to this one case. I suggest well trodden route.
LE: No this was three just happening to happen close together.
BC: I suggest that no: successful project leads to promotion to staff
LE: you will have to ask others.

BC: You will not have been privy to discussions between Owen Barder and claimant re her position?
LE: No
BC: Work was being put MF's way while they were waiting for funding?

OD: intervenes - [missed]
BC: Will rephrase. Olivia Dobbie suggested to MF earlier in this hearing that work was "put her way" in 2018?

LE: I didn't hear this till last week
EJ: It was a simple question?
BC: Was work "put the claimaint's way" in 20118 - do you know this from any source?
EJ: are you saying you don't know Mr Easley?
LE: I know of the 4 contracts but not beyound that

BC: Let me ask: if work WAS being put the claimant's way, is it CGD standard practice to put work to external researchers?
LE: can't comment either way
BC: I suggest this means there was an ongoing work relationship?
LE: Don't know

BC Let us look at these contracts. They are the same bar the task descriptions. This says the person contracted is to do the services?
LE: yes
BC: apart from this clause saying illness/injury can mean that with written approval contracted person can substitute.

BC: Absent illness or injury, the claimant is the person that will - and must- do the the work?
LE: Yes
BC: and this is CGD-standard?
LE: Others better to ask on that.

BC: CGD directs the work to be done?
BC: there is a detailed specification of the work?
LE: Yes, outlines deliverables.

BC: And it says she must comply with any CGD directions in doing the work?
LE: Not clear to me it says how she must work, when she must work. Hard to draw specifics

BC: So this specifies about working group with Mr Kenny; about coordinating with him and attending the group.
LE: yes

BC: GCD gives its researchers plenty of independence?
LE: yes
BC: and it's clear claimant is part of a team, for this project?
LE: yes

BC: And we have a confidentiality clause here. This was a core CGD project?
LE: It says 'strategic' not core.

BC: And we have correspondence here (which claimant did not see) about notice period?
LE: yes
BC: we see a note that a 90 day period was agreed, because of nature of project?
LE: yes

BC: 60 days was agreed in the end. 30 was standard?
LE: Don't know.
BC: You are HR director and you don't know the standard?
LE: I was only directly involved in London detail for a short time.

BC: This was an important project and hence the longer than standard notice period?
LE: don't really know

BC: IF the claimant had been put forward as an employee, with support internally and no opposition, that appointment would have been handled quickly?
LE: 3-4 weeks.

BC: 28/9/2018 complainant 1 comes to you. C1 is part of the "institutional advancement team" - fundraising?
LE: yes
BC: She says she thinks the complainant's tweets are "transphobic" "exclusive" - = exclusionary?
LE: yes
BC: and problematic for funders?
LE: yes

BC: can we agree C1 is that saying a transwoman is not a woman is "transphobic"?
LE: It was more than that. Q of funders.
BC: that was speculation, about the funders?

LE: At that time I had not heard of problems with funders.
BC: To be clear there were *never* any problems with funders?
LE: Amanda Glassman better person to answer
BC: This is not good enough. You were involved throughout.

BC: If any problems with funders you would now.
LE: but AG manages funders.
BC: you attended all meetings
LE: not [missed]
BC: you were part of the team [lists all names] deciding this matter.
LE: Disagree that we were a "team"

BC: If there had been any question at all of any funder having any problem, you would know.
LE: yes.

BC: C1's later comment in feedback is that anybody with gender-crtitical views should not be employed, because that is "transphobic".
LE: yes

BC: there was discussion within the fundraising team about all this?
LE: yes
BC: and if someone has strong views that can harden a "groupthink". Do you think that happened here
LE: No I think people thought for themselves

BC: C1 was in communication with Holly Shulman communications director about these matters
LE: yes
BC: We can see HS's reaction - "OMG" - in an email subject?

BC: emails between HS and SA [member of team]. "Dumb and transphobic". "Hasn't done gender studies".
BC: these are only the tip of the discussions - there were lots of discussions, that you were aware of.
LE: I see what you see in the bundle.

BC: you were not aware of anything not in the bundle?
LE: I have been careful to include everything relevant in the bundle.

BC: is it fair to say these are a visceral reaction and not any attempt at understanding claimant's position?

BC: we have already discussed the "material reality" point. Do you consider the comparison with Rachel dolezal offensive?
LE: yes

BC: Context is that someone ELSE has tweeted the comparison - agree? and is inviting discussion about comparison with race?
LE: Doesn't mention Dolezal

BC: Here we have someone who had previously tweeted opposite of claimant's view - saying Tw are women - claimant is responding?
LE: had not seen that.
BC: Claimant is responding to an invitation to discuss this, with people she has previously discussed all this with.

LE: She mentions Rachel Dolezal.
BC: that is because she has been invited to discuss that comparison.
LE: but the comparison is offensive.

BC: Let's approach differently.
BC: in a discussion on policy, law, all that, people use analogy and comparison to aid exploration.
LE: yes
BC: some analogies are better some worse.
LE: yes

BC: The fact that you find an analogy offensive does not mean it is.
LE: I find it really offensive.

BC: context originally was Philip Bunce and "man-els".
LE: That is how you are characterising it. It is an offensive comparison.
BC: you are jumping ahead, please stay with questions.

BC: do you accept concept was whether conflating sex and gender identity obscures reality of the implications of sex and women experience discrimination?
LE: Disagree that -

BC: not what I am asking. I am not even asking whether you think it's acceptable. I am asking whether you understand that that is the debate the claimant was participating in.
LE: had not considered it in that way.

OD: we have not established that it was like that?
BC: would prefer to continue.
EJ: Yes do.

BC: So - on the premise that I am correct about the nature of the discussions -

BC: so returning to Rachel Dolezal. Her view is that although she is not black, she has strong identification as being so. Agree?
LE: agree that that is RD's position yes

BC: difference between the races are basically superficial?
LE: don't know
BC: we can see claimant saying exactly that, in this tweet?
LE yes

BC: You have carefully read the claimant's tweets?
BC: You can see that it is arguable (even if you disagree) that a say cultural race identification can be made?
LE: that's actually CGD policy. People self-identify their race.

BC: So can you see that when criticism of Miss Dolezal is made, it's because even though 'race' is a construct based on superficial differences, it matters becuse of the disadvantages those structures result in?

LE: but Rachel Dolezal was an imposter, she told people not to blow her cover.

BC: but RD has repeatedly stated that her identificaiton is genunie and deeply held.
LE: don't know.

BC: So you have assumed that claimant was making a comparison with someone they believed to be lying, because that's what you think about RD? You did not pause to think claimant might have believed RD?

BC: compare to Philip Bunce situation.
OD & EJ: too complicated - please break it down

BC: re-state that Philip Bunce was awarded a "woman in business award"
LE: but comparing that to someone who was only pretending to be black is offensive.

BC: claimant was exploring the similarity. Someone claiming a disadvantage they were not in fact subject to.
LE: This is very complicated and philosophical. The comparison was offensive.

BC: let us go back to start of conversation on Twitter claimant was having. Please read this bit in detail.

EJ: Shall we break, to give us all time?
BC: indeed
EJ: break until 3.30. Reminder LE must not speak to anyone during break.

{Break}

We resume.
EJ: re-reads reporting restrictions - the names of complainants 1-4 and their email addresses cannot be published in Great Britain. Criminal offence.

BC: Did LE read the pages?
LE: yes
BC: did you read at the time?
LE: I read quite a lot of them.

BC: Claimant starts by saying explicitly she agrees that transwomen are vulnerable people who should be protected?
LE: but later there's offensive stuff, have to take whole
BC: We can agree this is a complex debate
LE: Yes and I have said in statements much sensible from claimant

BC: We have a tweet saying ,so if a load of people stopped identifying as women they could get paid more, stop being harassed. Do you understand point claimant is making?

LE: not sure I do, this ties my mind in knots. Her belief is confusing. She is couching it in academic terms but its' really offensive.

BC: perhaps this is the problem?

BC: Is your point that claimant must not express belief in importance, relevance, immutability of sex at all - because you think that's denying some people's reality?

LE: yes that's my view

BC: so when claimant says gender identity does not change reality, you find it offensive because she's denying other people's reality?
LE: yes
BC: You conflate identity and reality - claimant thinks the opposite. Is this fair?

LE: identify is reality - without identity there's jsut a corpse

BC: I suggest that you are struggling with this because you can't step outside your own views

LE: but I am looking at the language of her tweets, not at her belief.

BC: But we have agreed that the tweets must be viewed in context of her beliefts.

BC: Going back to twitter exchange re Rachel Dolezal: whole point of it, re sex as well as race, is - is there a difference between identity and reality
LE: yes

BC: And here she talks about what the reality of sex means for women.
LE: yes
BC: this is the context; and the claimant was invited to discuss comparison with R Dolezal

LE: She should not have introduced Dolezal
BC: She didn't. The other tweeter did,
LE: Well she shouldn't have mentioned Dolezal

BC: You have said inc in your statements "arbiter of someone else's reality". You're saying it's an offensive thing.
LE: Yes it's offensive.
BC: Can we confirm definition of "reality"? You mean "identity"?
LE: I don't separate the two.

BC: Confirm you don't separate the two?
LE: Confirm that yes

BC: So "challenging someone else's reality" doesn't mean ALL instances - you disagree with R Dolezal - there are limits?

LE: but you can have that discussion without offensive comparisons to Rachel Dolezal.

BC: So we have here, re discussion about C1 and C2 complaints. We have Ellen Mackenzie here - Chief Financial Officer and VP Administration, CGD [DC]; Trustee of CGDE
LE: yes

BC: We also have initials MF? But cannot be complainant.
LE: Indeed. must mean Mark Plant
BC: we also have Amanda Glassman?
LE: yes

BC: these are your notes?
LE: Yes these are initials of people I might want to consult.
BC: The first 3 certainly became members of the group dealing with matter of claimant? Holly Shulman not so much
LE: yes

BC: And here we have another note, this time bringing in C3 too?
LE: yes
BC: can we clear up some confusion here. Your statement describes C1 and C2 coming to you and also that they mentioned C3 to you and was coming to Washington a few weeks later

LE: She didn't wait, she skyped me
BC: Statement is incorrect?
LE: no - she just didnt' wait

BC: C3 spoke to you on videolink? Was after you'd spoken to C2?
LE: I believe so

BC: Your second statement says - after email exchange with MF, you reported back to C1 and C2. But not C3. Could it be that you had not spoken to C3 at this point.
LE: that's not the case

BC: But meeting with C2 and C3 definitely separate.

BC: But your meeting note has C2 and C3 on it, both.
LE: Note is of C2 meeting - I then scribbled C3 on it later as related.

BC: Note here about talking to Cindy Huang. Does that mean C2 had spoken to CH or that you were?
LE: the latter.

BC: C2 says how can she work with claimaint?
LE: yes
BC: But it turned out that all 3 of C1, C2, C3 did work with claimant thereafter? Perfectly professionally? Work was done?
LE: yes

BC: So we have no note of what C3 says to you.
LE: Not conotemporanously no, only my memory.
BC: which is?
LE: C3 said that conversations had been happening in the office.

BC: back to your statement. You say C4 came to see you at some point but you can't remember when.
LE: yes.
BC: confirms C4 is in the Restrictions Order.
LE: yes

LE: [gives details about C4 that I'd probably better not write]
BC: we don't know when C4 complained or what said. Or anything.
LE: Not really.

BC: looking now at senior colleagues reactions.

BC: you report to Holly Shulman, Ellen Mackenzie and Amanda Glassman. You say "cohort of staff" - this means C1-C3?
LE yes

BC: you say "came this morning" - that's a bit of an elision yes? But never mind
LE: yes
BC: they said "transphobic" - this is not about tone?

BC: You say in email you looked at tweets and felt claimant was making a nuanced argument.
LE: yes. I felt it was a little bit sort of charged but yes was a discussion.

BC: You talk about some fairly sensible possible social media policy suggestions?
LE: yes
BC: you suggest people add disclaimers about personal views. You reiterate that MF tweets cross no line.

BC: You say you base this on reivew of the twitter conversations.
LE: yes

BC: This is after a more thorough review. You say first time round you'd looked at about 25% of the conversation. This is a fairly substantial proportion?
EJ: It's 25%
BC: What I'm getting it as that you must have had good overview of discussion
LE: Just an estimate

BC: I am suggesting that 25% is enough to get good overview.
OD: that depends which 25%. Q takes us no further.
EJ: Perhaps we can get answer then we'll know where it gets us

BC: Mr Easley I'm making these points to allow you to make your case fairly. When you wrote the second email you'd seen just about all.
LE: 25%
EJ: Mr Easley BC is saying that when you said you had read 25% then, you mean you'd NOW read just about all

LE: yes

BC: I am going to be saying that is not credible for you to say reading more tweets changed your view. I am saying 25% gave you a good idea of content and tone.

LE: please clarify
BC: Your 25% gave you a good view of the nature of discussion and its tone.
LE: Yes. At time I said it was OK but I changed my mind.

BC: Here we have Ms Glassman agreeing with you - nuanced, not offiensive, debate
LE: yes
BC: Mr Plant saying not inherently transphobic, it's about words, notes sensitivity to words in TG community

BC: And here Mr Ahmed accidentally likes one of MF's tweets, says he doesn't know much about debate.

BC: At this point senior management broadly agrees CGD may need social media policy, but claimant has done nothing wrong.

LE: yes

BC: I am going to suggest that change towards client was not because of any reivew of what claimant said, it was because other people got involved.

BC: Here we have Ms Shulman saying there is a draft policy and a no-racist no-sexist guideline. People otherwise free?

BC: HS says she wants to consult QI [external consultancy]

BC: HS still with CGD?
LE: She left and returned
BC: HS could however have been called as witness?
LE: Yes.

BC: I suggest that what changes management view from "this is not offensive" to where we are now is not any review of what claimant says, but instead fear of sin of discrimination?

BC: We see here HS does contact Quantum Impact
LE: yes
BC: You joined conversation with QI
LE: yes
BC: HS not here to say why she makes comparison with subtitution "gay " or "African American"
LE: no

BC: The "but you didn't read everything" gets introduced at this point. This is where you start to worry about missing the sin of transphobia
LE: disagree

BC: Your witness statement says you called QI and set out concerns. Can I clarify. You are implying this is after a more thorough review, because your previous para is about that, but that's not so?

LE: I'm saying I am not sure I had read every tweet.
BC: are you or are you not saying here that when you wrote this you had completed the full review that you said you did that changed your mind.

[I am slightly lost - we seem to be talking about timestamps in minutes and hours, and about what heppened when]

BC: This email is from the evening of that day?
LE: yes
BC: sequence is: you had NOT fully-read, and changed your mind, before the QI meeting. It was after that meeting
LE: that meeting did not change my mind

BC: You've said meeting was about your concerns and link with CGD. So who set out the issues? You or AG?
LE: dont' recall.

BC: Email here from QI after THEY have looked at the tweets. About 90 mins before you email AG to say you've changed your mind.
LE: agree timing.
BC: When you added this email to disclosure to claimant you removed 2 paragraphs

LE: no
BC: If you look here: [finding reference]
EJ: this will have to be last line of Qs for the day
BC: [continues to look for email]

BC: [locates] this is you forwarding email to yourself - taking out two paragraphs.
LE: Does not ring bell.
BC: this is what goes to decision makers. Deletion surely significant?
LE: No.

BC: Let's look at what is removed. This is QI apologising for "rambling" "foot in mouth"
LE: I can't recall what she might have meant.

BC: Is it the case that it is QI told you you were dinosaurs failing to spot transphobia?
LE: Can't recall any of thjat.
BC: But you can't recall what she DID mean?
LE: no

LE: Did not know edited email was in bundle. Was expecting the full one. Not trying to hide anything.

BC: Will stop there

EJ: Re timetabling. We have Friday back, will we complete evidence this week?
BC: yes. We already knew I might vary timings over the witnesses, which has happened.
BC: Expect to finish LE tomorrow morning and move to Ms Glassman during the day.

EJ: We will have Monday morning and Tuesday for submissions.

OD: Am sole counsel. Will not be able to do submission properly without Friday: weekend has family commitments, young children.

EJ: We must do the case justice. Could both barristers look at timings and advise what they feel is best use of time. Let us know tomorrow. We resume at 10

EJ: reminds LE must not discuss case overnight.

[END]

@threadreaderapp please unroll