Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to the afternoon day 7 of the employment tribunal in the case of Maya Forstater versus CGD(Europe), CGD & Masood Ahmed. We expect the Court to resume at 2:00 pm. Our thread from this morning is at threadreaderapp.com/thread/1503669…

Tweets from all the earlier days of the hearing are 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

This afternoon we are expecting BC to end questioning of Luke Easley (LE), Director of Finance and Administration / HR Director of GCD. This will be followed by any questions the Panel have for LE and an opportunity for OD to put re-examination to him.

Later in the day we expect to begin hearing the evidence of Amanda Glassman (AG), Chief Operating Officer, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary of CGD and a Trustee of CGD(Europe).

We are restarting.

EJ: Requests all to mute. Reminds everyone of reporting restrictions in place (4 individuals’ names & their email addresses must not be reported in Great Britain; it is a criminal offence to do so).

BC: No more Qs for Mr Easley

EJ: Do panel members have Qs - I don't.

Panel: No no Qs

OD: I have 8 areas of re-examination

OD: You were asked about integration between CGD and CGD(Europe). We have email from Ian Mitchell 25/7/18 - draft email starting "comrades"

OD: Says if trustees approve we will adopt same as DC for operations, fundraising and comms arlready are. Can you comment on what progress was on that at that time

LE: recollection is that it didn't start until 2017 so only 6-8 months on. Can't speak for comms and fundraising but re operations was very much in infancy stages

OD: you said ops = finance, HR and admin, are they now fully integrated
LE: No still on going. in fact Q4 2021 finance was still fully separate, and even now integrated system is not live

OD: We have heard term "material" a lot. We have looked at correspondence with it in. Did MF ever raise with you that this is phrase from Marxist phliospophy
LE: not that I'm aware

OD: You've been asked about other situations, what would happen, eg biblical teaching, pro-choice/pro-life beliefs. What if somebody said bible teaching was nonsense, couldn't be true. What if it was being discussed on Slack ...

OD what if it was being blogged and what if -

EJ: I am losing track

OD: Mr Easley what would your reaction be

LE: I would take the same approace

OD: You've been told a lot of topics were discussed in London office and whether you were aware. Did you ever get complaints about that
LE no I didn't

OD: You were asked about tweets from Owen Barder and ? Pritchard and another person and said they were markedly different from claimaint's. how different?

LE: Much less inflammatory, this was about "man-els", overall less extreme

OD: You sent email after getting QI report. You write right of any staff person not under attack but cannot outweight right of others to fee comfortable at work

OD: you were asked, MF was found guilty of sending transphobic tweets with no chance to defend. Is it your understanding she had been found guilty of that

LE: No

EJ: Thanks LE for evidence. Says ban on discussing no longer applies

OD: Next Amanda Glassman, I understand is going to take over LE seat [LE camera turned off while this happens]

[Amanda Glassman is now online]

EJ: Q re sound of typing. Ms Dobbie must be allowed to keep her sound on in case of needing to speak so will not ask her to mute
OD: I do try most of the time
EJ: indeed and we will leave it to you

[AG affirms following EJ re truth, whole truth, nothing but truth]

OD: Invites AG to state full name, AG: does
OD: asks have you read statement recently. Any corrections
AG: yes: Para 31 - please add "potential" before "funders"

OD: Any more? AG: No
OD: is you statement true to best of belief
AG: yes

OD: I have 4 supplementary questions

OD: Says CGD accounts are consoldated for audit. Are they combined

AG: CGDEurope produces own accounts but we do include in DC accounts also

OD: Around 2018 how was CGD(E) funded
AG: c20% from CGD c66% from Gates foundation remainder from bilateral government funders Europe/Australia £2.8M approx total

OD: Claimant says re a particular report she was asked to write that a contractor would not be asked. Is that so

AG: It was not infrequent that we ask contractors for input to such reports

OD: re streamlining of operations between DC/London. How far had that got when Mark Plant went to head up London.

AG: Started in earnest 2018. I think June 2018 we starting looking at the programme model

AG: I would say it was process of integration on the programme side. On funding side more recognition that we should approach funders in an integrated way.

AG: but we were still approaching funders separately. And we have just discussed finance side arrangements.

EJ: Typing - I am not criticising anybody. But, chatroom is only for court use.

BC: Greets AG. Don't know if you watched me talking to LE
AG: yes I did
BC: Not going to labour all the same points with you. But can we agree that transparency and integrity important to CGD

BC: And that includes transparency towards individuals
AG: Yes. But. Different re staff and re contractors.
BC: I am not going to cover things that have already come up.

BC: Diversity also respondent's value
AG: Yes
BC: includes diversity of belief
AG: yes
BC: incudes not restricting people internally
AG: Yes subject to expression per handbook

BC: But leaving aside the utterly unacceptable, and subject to tone, anything can be discussed.
AG: yes subject to handbook

BC: So if a Christian staff member told me I was immoral because I'm gay, that's not OK becasuse attack on me.
AG: yes

But if they said they believed gay relationships immoral, that's not an attack on me.
AG: could create unpleasantness for a colleague

BC: [Names 2 collegues, one strongly atheist one strongly Christian]
BC: These 2 have had robust exchanges on religion
AG: Had not heard of this

BC: you would object to this?
AG: It's about the topics CGD works on and people's private views not coming into work
BC: that's not how London operated?
AG: not sure

BC: Difference between discussing views and attacking individual?
AG: Sure but some things better not discussed at work

BC: The only topic you do have explicit ban on is the view that TW are not women? If MF had stayed, she would not have been allowed to express her views at all?
AG: Not exactly, would have been discussion of whether relevant to CGD

BC: Not quite what I'm asking, I asked if she wouldhave been able to discuss internally.
AG: no prohibition

BC: Checking chronology. September 2018 and before, no prohibition. But thereafter developed that she should not discuss internally at all?

AG: No I disagree, see email from LE re CGD position

BC: This is time of discussion re renewal of her fellowship, re QI report. LE says MF should by now be clear we are not preparred to discuss nuance of her position, and have clear firewall around her discussing in workplace

AG: was not part of that discussion, I think the idea was about respect, and about people inviting discussing, also reputational risk of tweeting about what is a woman, but this is all speculation

BC: This is a 3-way DM between you, Michael Clements, Jonathan Glennie?
AG: No, 2 separate conversations, MC+JG and then me+JG, someone has screenshot without permission

BC: This is 5th May after MF left, re SUnday times article, your convo with JG, you are upset that MF is saying she lost her job.
AG: I felt JG had reported only what MF said and was not accurate

BC: You thought MF was lying when she said job offer withdrawn
AG: I thought it was not accurate

BC: MF had been offered associate position not renewal; she had said would not work, she was told go think about it, she had gone to do that. Accurate?
AG: It was a genuine offer of contracter position

BC: not my Q. Q was, MF went away to think about it.
AG: Yes
BC: No written offer re Gates project was ever made to MF. Agree?
AG: Yes

BC: No one from respondents ever said oral offer had been withdrawn
AG: Agree
BC: There is nothing from claimaint saying she rejected the contract offer
AG: Her leaving email suggests it was not a real offer

BC: Not the Q. You are saying you inferred from email. I asked: nowhere does the respondent say "we aren't going to offer you work" and MF never said "I refuse your offer" does she.
AG: I think we should look at farewell email

BC: please answer the question
AG: we have to look at the email
BC: OK let's look at the email

BC: Nowhere does she say I am not going to accept offer of work on Gates project.
AG: It says "offer was rescinded". Not true

BC: this is the point. Nobody withdrew the offer and she did not refuse it. What happened is position became untenable. This is what tribunal has to decide.

BC: If we look at this email to her a little before - it does not explicitly say offer withdrawn, but claimant view is that it is very much implicit.
AG: I can see where she might read that, and email could have been clearer, but that was v much not intention

BC: You can see how she gets that understanding. Objectively. Likewise I accept that if objectively offer was not being implicitly withdrawn, MF email would torpedo the offer. She was not lying about it.
AG: that was not my understanding at the time.

BC: There is a disagreement about what the effect of the correspondence was.
BC: However you say claimant took down tweets about people's genitals that were offensive. This wasn't true was it.
AG: was an error on my part.

BC: You thought it OK to make that statment to someone in claimant's network, without checking facts?
AG: I did look but could not find, did not intend to misrepresent, this is someone in my network too

AG: I was angry and should not have responded, lesson learned.

BC: Looking at DM from Mr Clemence. Says beyond this she was disseminating to whole office re gender of actual staff members. Not true?
AG: Don't know where MC got that from
BC: not true
AG: I do know she was saying about not realitiy and was considered innappropraite by some ppl

BC: I repeat. It is not true that she disseminated re collegues; does your credibility no good to defend. Give you chaance to say it's not true.

AG: That part is definitely not accurate.

BC: There had obviuosly been lots of discussion and comment about the claimant that led to her being misrepresented as bigot attacking collegues

AG: I didn't see any of that. MC not a water cooler person. But yes there are inaccuracies here

BC: And we see a level of fury here at the claimant about the action she was bringing against you
AG: very unfortunate
BC: not CGD values?
AG: yes

BC: Letter to you and Mr Ahmed after last year's EAT judgement from 85 staff members
AG: yes
BC: "As Amanda said in her statement we think first rullng was correct"

BC: letter urges you to appeal, to show support for trans colleagues and friends, CGD must take stand against all bigotry including transphobia
BC: 85 staff saying MF views not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Is that how you nderstand letter

AG: they are focussing on the belief yes
BC: Not what asked. Letter says belief not worthy of respect, because bigotry
AG: yes that's what they are saying

BC: you & MR Ahmed responded in Pink News
AG: No
BC: Letter thanking them for letter, said "in best spirit of CGD culture"
AG: It was internal but yes that's what it said

BC: So it is best spirit of CGD culture to treat gender critical belief as bigoted and transphobic
AG: it was about the first tribunal
BC: not sure I understand

BC: If we look here - first ET was about whether belieft, set out here, was worthy of respect in a democratic society. So that is the belief the employees' letter is talking about?
AG: yes

BC: So am I to conclude that you personally also think that belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society?

AG: Yes I stand by public statment on this
BC: The core belief, wrritten here, not WORIADS?
AG: Yes
BC: Because bigotted?
AG: It's about the expression

BC: I know you say that now. You had choice before to differentiate belief and expression. But in your grounds of resistance you said the belief is not worthy of respect, you said nothing about expresssion

BC: your position, personally and as organisation, is that the belief is not WORIADS, is against others dignity
AG: that is what we argued, but we lost at appeal, I'm not best person to ask

BC: Your personal position and the institutional position, is that the belief - not the expression - is NWORIADS and against others' dignity
AG: yes
BC: You have not changed your view, always your view
AG: yes

BC: So we could argue about mode of expression as much as we like but that was not your objection at all. Your objection was not to niceties of language, there was no language she could have chosen, you wouild always have said bigoted and transphobic

AG: there are ways to have a discussion, to talk about transwomen and ciswomen, I don't think my views colour, but that is true

BC: Judge at EA1 said claimant could have discussed without saying TW are not women, is that what you mean
AG: yes to talk about spaces etc like that

BC: So you are saying she can talk about issues around, but not about the fundamentals of her belief
AG: No its about how these things are conveyed in the workplace

BC: I asked, she could engage in discussion but without being able to express fundamentals of the belief. Is that so.
AG: this is hypothetical. MF was visiting fellow, we had no guidelines, email from LE re respectfully

BC: I'm not going to keep asking same question.

BC: Looking at organisation structure now

BC: Your statement describes what we've been calling the "One CGD" policy
AG: yes the programme model

BC: the two are not the same?
AG: they are more or less. Intimately related.

BC: Let's look at that. This is CEO report for 2017 for CGDEurope. We can see that "one CGD" principle firmly established, it's here at the bottom of the page
AG: Yes that's accurate

BC: next page is missing. What we do have is clearly in present tense. Doesn't talk of early stages or anything. Very clear.
AG: There's a lot of details we could discuss but yup

BC: returning to principle of transparency. This goes to board. Is truthful and transparent.
AG: It's, yes, it's, yes it's accurate
BC: You seem to trying to divert our attention elsewhere

BC is it the case that the one CGD principle was operating.
AG: yes it was operating but you can see in various places that it was also aprocess

BC: when Mr Ahmed took over, the management of the two organisations was integrated, they had always worked closely togehther,

AG: yes

BC: A visiting fellow could be based in Washington or London?
AG: yes or elsehwere
BC: no distinction drawn?
AG: no

BC: This is equivalent from following year March 2018. So before "programme model" discussion. "One CGD" clearly up an runnding?
AG: yes
BC: more about "one CGD" later on

BC: clear research will be done hwereever and funding raised wherever becsause this is one organisation
AG: yes but seprate organsiations all the same
BC: But in practice, one organisation
AG: separate legalities but yes

BC: only separation was as required by different jurisdiction but all operations as if single entity otherwise
AG: yes

BC: Visiting fellowship is one of the levels of engagement. And there were VFs who were employees.
AG: yes
BG: no one definition of VF - varied per person
AG: and by work undertaken yes

BC: You describe your udnerstanding of how MF's VF came about and it is clear it is not unrelated to funding
AG: correct

BC: do you personally distinguish academic VFs from employed VFs and contracted VFs.
AG: yes many models inc some academics
BC: for some, was platform for their work for CGD. Like claimant
AG: yes

BC: and in cases like client, fundraising / profile raising involved.
AG: yes

BC: and CGD would then engage the VF as funding permitted. And no point in VF if no funding.
AG: Many models -
BC: If there was no work for a VF to do, likely VF would not be renewed.
AG: yes tho there is also cycle of renewal etc

BC: and a VF would leave if no work, no profile?
AG: you mean that if niether CGD nor a VF was happy it would not renew yes

EJ: is this convenient for break?
BC: yes
EJ: Reminds AG must not discuss. Restart in 10 minutes. [BREAK]

We are resuming.

EJ: note large number of people attending, can't see other panel members. please speak to get up screen

EJ: reporting restrictions re names and email addresses of complainants 1-4

BC: in fundraising we have agreed claimant was to carry out she was under instructions from IA team
AG: that's for staff, VFs, could have separate talk to funders

BC: when working with the IA team she was required to follow IA team instructions
AG: yes plus other people too

BC: Many VFs have wide networks including funders and potential ones
AG: yes
BC: Funders may contact them
AG: Yes

BC: including because they know them as being with CGD
AG: yes
BC: could lead to development of a programme etc
AG: yes with some other stages

BC: exactly as happened with MF
AG: Yes
BC: and this did not happen because of her personally only, was re being part of CGD

BC: advantage of being a VF is beign part of CGD infrasturcutre
AG: yes

BC: there is no sense in which work MF did for any IA programmes was different from any other researcher staff or otherwise
AG: Well there is Q of seniority and whether could work alone or with lead

BC: and this wsa a CGD programme she ws working on?
AG: yes development notes say so, but we know claimant and her lead had developed programme

BC: but that is normal - researchers encouraged to bring ideas
AG: yes but CGD only takes on the ones we want to

BC: So Gates grant proposal submitted Aug 2018.
BC: Email from Mark Plant to collegues enclosing proposal. Says will need more changes but likely to go through

BC: "expect to go thru" - this is nature of proposal. There is collaboration in development of programme.
AG: yes it's collaborative but could still be rejected

BC: but you would not have got to this point and expect outright rejection. Even if some changes exxected
AG: yes

BC: This is part of CGD Grounds of Resistance. Mentions this proposal
AG: yes
BC: It denies strong expectation of funding. THat's not true?
AG: I think the sentence is trying to say it's never certain

BC: No one had said dead cert, claimant had said strong expectation, that was true, wasn't it?
AG: yes
BC: you are sounding often as if you are trying to finess a lie
AG: No. I'm trying to be clear.

BC: do you deny that the statement "CGD denies strong expectation of funding" is not true?
AG: repeats about certainty
BC: Will give you one more chance.
AG: There was not a strong indication but there was an indication.

BC: This is part of the budget for the Gates proposal
AG: yes
BC: we can see the claimant is second name in table at the top. Which is headed "personnel"
AG: yes

BC: there is a later separate table of "consultants"
AG: yes

BC: This section is final narrative to go on propsosal
AG: yes
BC: this has a personnel and benefits section, under personnel names claimant.
AG: yes

BC: separate section on consultants later
AG: yes

BC: Section on benefits and some text. Eg pension etc, FTE = full time equivalent. Talks of retirement and payroll. CGD does not provide these to external consultants
AG: correct
BC: payroll taxes not to consulants
AG: correct

BC: in this, claimant is positioned as employee
AG: yes but she was VF, classifcation not correct, but yes that is what is said there

BC: Gates would not know significance of your job titles
AG: no
BC: practice was just to describe people's current position
AG: yes
BC: eg Nancy Lee described as senior fellow here, visiting earlier. Because current
AG: yes

BC: purpose is to describe to Gates foundation the structure and personal
AG: yes. However this is not a hiring document this is a proposal

BC: I understand that.
BC: Says here claimant is called VF in document
AG: yes
BC: means in proposal
AG: yes
BC: says she will work as a consultant. That's not true, in the proposal?
AG: it was an error

BC: Is it said anywhere "claimant was listed in proposal as employee but that was an error"
AG: Not that we have looked at. But it's an error that she is in that section
BC: not true that it was an error
AG: yes true that it is an error

AG: she was not employed at that time
BC: BUt intention was that she would be when funding came
AG: that is not the same as an offer of employment

BC: I understand that. But. The discussions between MF and Mr Plant, Mr Barder and others were to the effect that she would be taken on as eomployee when gates funding came
AG: It says we can begin to discuss when funding.

BC: I will ofc discuss with Mr Plant. I am asking about your own understanding. MF had been told to effect of she would be employed when Gates funding came, and it was expected it would
AG: not my understanding. Process. Many discussions.

BC: did you know all that at the time or only later
AG: at the time
BC: you were aware of the discussions.
BC: Here you include MF in an email about activity report that goes to employee fellows

BC: she is included in team
AG: my error
BC: claimaint queried whether she was intended to be included
AG: you repllied oops not qujite yet, hopefully next year

BC: Q from Mr Clemence about including another fellow, you reply should not have included nor maya "in this round".
AG: yes

BC: you say in statement you hoped MF would be a future candidate. Not true. Was an expections.
AG: No, there was a process
BC: Luke Easley has said it would have been a process of only 3-4 weeks usually
AG: It's possible

BC: OK so claimant's expression of belief, and reaactions. You first aware when C1 came to speak to you 28/9
AG: yes

BC: You say C1 perceived as transphobic and reputational risk
AG: yes
BC: C1 did not mention language, simply described belief as transphobic
AG: it was a brief conversation
BC: she must have given a fiar amount of details?
AG: I don't recall

BC: you made no notes
AG: no

BC: When LE emailed you summarising concerns that viewpoints transphobic you didn't say "that's not what I've been told it's moe about language"
AG: I did not
BC: You had same understanding - it ws about viewpoints
AG: it was about the tweets, characterised as transphobic

BC: About reputational risk. THere is not a shred of evidence of any blowback to CGD as a result of MF's tweets
AG: Well on twitter you can see people in our network getting involved and voiceing concerns, disappointed, harm etc. Repuational within our network

BC: these are the ones you mention in your statement - will return to them. However: this is retrospective; thin evidence scrabbled later.
AG: I don't agree.

BC: None of this is mentioned in any of the internal correspondence.
AG: No but they are my views and I had them by the December SPG.
BC: mentioned at SPG?
AG: no

BC: There is nothing from any funder complaining?
AG: no
BC: Nobody said they'd review funding
AG: no
BC: Nobody did review / remove funding
AG: not that I know of

BC: that is weaselly. NObody did, did they
AG: Well there have been funding changes.

BC: This is a reply from you to Mr Easley, says you have reviewed and you agree. That claimant was making nuanced argument.
AG. Yes. But I had not fully reviewed at the time

BC: it is striking that every senior person giving evidence had reviewed at this point, but had not managed to find any of the things you later claim are offensive and bigotted.
AG: there was much that was challenging but we had not read all, only headlines, top tweets etc

BC: So you did see tweet re man-els and Philip Bunce
AG: yes
BC: you didn't regard as inapproriate, transphobic at the time
AG: inappropriate possibly, not really transphobic, no

BC: You didn't see any misgendering
AG: not exactly. Didn't look at all. Had not seen graphs.
BC: Mr Ahmed liked one of the graphs.
AG: that was an accident.
BC: But it meant they had been seen. We know QI say the graphs as very problematic

BC: and we know Mr Ahmed saw them. And we can see him saying he doesn't know enough about debate even so.
AG: yes
BC: but you are saying the graphs hit between the eyes as problem

AG: Had not seen them at the time
BC: why are they a problem. Let's look at whole picture

AG: OK So I see tweets re her being tax expert, then tweets about what is a woman, then tweets about humans beings as other primates being massively bimodal, I think it's mocking.
OD: Can we check page
BC: AG was quoting words that don't appear on that page.

BC: Someone intervenes on thread to post a view from another tweeter about is sex a spectrum like gender identity, whereas this thread is about the converse view.
EJ: has to intervene to make sure panel members are here

BC: we see part of the other thread linked. Then a graph with a blue and pink bimodal graphic. Perhaps joking.
BC: what you are objecting to is when MF responds to points made.
AG: She is tweeting about aspects of the sexes.

BC: She says "nonsense on stiilts". Twitter is pretty direct?
AG: Not universally
BC: There is nothing about "nonsense on stilts" that is out of normal Twitter use
AG: Perhaps but it's ridiculing the other view

BC: And rightly so because claimant then says "what are these axes supposed to represent?"
AG: yes
BC: you understand what a bimodal distribution is, mapping of two distinct categories that overlap a bit?
AG: but the tweet is making a joke

BC: The graphic is being used to "proved" spectrum.
BC: If you plot the length of cats and rabbits on a graph you will get a bimodal distribution
AG: Not sure. But not appropriate to have graphic of people's genitals.

BC: Plot cats and rabbits: bimodal distribution.
AG: Perhaps yes

BC: First thing a statistician would ask is "is this 2 populations not 1"
AG: yes
BC: MF is mocking idea that a bimodal graph means a spectrum. It's a bad argument
AG: yes that is what she is saying
BC: and it IS a bad argument
AG: I can't judge

BC: She then later says here is a characteristic plotted, this is massively bimodal, it's completely bimodal. This is completlely typical twitter debate
AG: it's on Twitter yes

BC: And CGD does not say people must confine their tweeting to international development and must not make jokes
AG: there are a LOT of tweets here, not just occasional joke

BC: lots of people have lots of interests outside CGD, common for people to use same twitter account for everything
AG: yes
BC: and there was nothing at all said ever about what she could and could not tweet
AG: No and no intention to limite

BC: convenient to stop there
EJ: Yes. Restart 10 am tomorrow.
[ENDS}

@threadreaderapp please unroll