Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon - this is the second part of the afternoon session in the case of Jo Phoenix v Open University at Employment Tribunal.

The evidence of Dr Leigh Downes (Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the OU) will continue

LD = Dr Leigh Downes
BC = Ben Cooper KC counsel for
JP = Jo Phoenix, claimant

J = the Judge
P = either of the two panel members sitting with the Judge

The court is currently taking a break, and will resume in about ten minutes.

[hearing resumes]
BC: [page ref] email to you - "confidentially am meeting JP next week, have not told her what about, it's about video etc and what she is saying". You have said you are a "little voice" re HERC - but you were not a "little voice" in the department were you

LD: I have a bit of a voice ...
BC: You are close to DD and LW
LD Yes
BC: You replied to the email "thank you for letting me know and that harm in the department being addressed"
LD it was about disagreement I think

BC: More emails with Professor Westmarland [LW] re letter to the Sunday Times JP had signed, you reference Stonewall Workplace Equality Index. Again you do not express your disagreement eg write to Sunday Times, you go to head of department.
LD: Was expressing a different view.

BC: I understand that you disagree - I'm talking about what you do with that. You don't engage privately or publicly, engage in discussion - you go to head of dept.
LD: was expressing concern.

BC: Trying to stop JP speaking about this.
LD: No

BC: You also wrote to dean of Faculty re ST letter.
LD: I was raising concerned.

BC: One concern you say, two OU academics - you mean JP and JPk.
LD: Yes I believe they had signed it.

BC: You were expecting the Dean of Faculty to investigate and take action
LD: No I was concerned about workplace culture and environment.

BC: You were cold to JP
LD: No I was collegial. I did not know her well and at OU if you don't work with s/o you don't have much interaction
[Some observers not muted and much background noise. J asks for mutes]

BC: Many in department agreed with you and disagreed with JP.
LD: No it was some and some, and many undecided.

BC: Email from DD - not to you -
LD no have not seen this before
BC you can see context is a video by JP saying she hopes to research trans prisonders
LD: do you mean WPUK video
BC: I don't know. It appears clear from email it's a video shown in department
LD: I don't recall

BC: DD goes on to describe department mood - that most people do not want a punitive appraoch to it. Implication is that you LD do want a punishment
LD: I don't know what she meant.

BC: Goes on to say about no more harm and clear she is saying the majority of dept did view JP views and expressions were objectionable and causing harm, damage
LD: No, LW and DD were just trying to find a way through

BC: JP tried to start a discussion with you about the issues by email, september 2019.
LD: Yes
BC: She is tyring to start a conversation
LD: Yes
BC: She says conscious of overlap with your work and offers options to avoid clashing on this eg working together, or reviewing

LD: Yes
BC: You have said you always welcome discussion
LD: Yes but that is not how I experienced this email. I and another had been working in the area for a couple of years by then.

BC: You didn't reply for a couple of weeks
LD No, I was on leave
BC: JP then sends a followup email nothing wrong with that?
LD: No nothing wrong.

BC: You then reply you'd be happy to look at her work, you are saying she can't see yours?
LD: I was very busy and we were looking for legal advice, there was a lot going on, I already had a research mentor

LD: My colleague was the one who was JP's mentee so I assumed she and JP were discussing
BC: You didn't discuss with your colleague?
LD: I think I did

BC: JP understood you to not be keen - right to do so?
LD: Yes, to gather no collaborative project
BC: Or even to talk to her about it?
LD no that's not right

BC: Surely it's usual to bite the hand off a professor offering research opportunity?
LD: I felt under pressure so I took advice, felt I already had all the support I needed.
BC: JP replied that offer always open
LD: Yes

BC: JP is engaging constructively with you isn't she?
LD: Yes once I'd made it clear this particular project not happening

BC: JP apologises to you if she had seem hot and heavy - wanting smooth relationship
LD: I found it uncomfortable, her approach strident
BC: Which she has acknowledge
LD: Yes

BC: There's a book left in her pigeonhole - she writes a long email discussing.

J: Am concerned about time Mr Cooper. 3 witnesses Friday
BC: All very short
J OK

BC: You send a short reply, and another book recommendation.
LD: Yes
BC: LP then replies discussing, again at lenght
LD: Yes dialogue.
BC: You never reply
LD: Did I not?

LD: I think I did, but "agree to disagree".

BC: What we see is JP repeatedly trying to engage in debate and you repeatedly brush her off.
LD: No, we agreed to disagree

BC: Your engagement was 2 books and 2 short emails
LD: No, more to it than that.
[intervention, inaudible]
J: Save for re-exam?
BC: No, that's fair, there's a longer email at [page]

BC: Dept meeting December 2019. People share re research, events they're doing. JP mentioned research on prison staff re housing trans prisoners in Canada
LD Yes she mentioned
BC: She mentioned Essex cancellation
LD Yes, first time I heard of it

BC: It's a significant thing to happen to an academic
LD: First I had hearrd
BC: You agree it's serious
LD: Never has happened to me
BC: I won't ask the question another time.

BC: X asked and you then spoke about your research
LD: Not quite in that order. I mentioned Stephen Whittle as collaborator.
BC: You were applauded
LD: Don't remember
BC: But you can remember who spoke when
LD: Have looked at mintues

BC: Are you reporting the minutes or your remembering?
LD My remembering
BC: But you don't remember applause.
LD Nothing out of the ordinary.

BC: You didn't react to her cancellation by Essex because you supported it.
LD: I didn't support it.
BC: You though she should not speak about all this at all.

BC: Email next day from DD apologising for landing her emotions on you and thanking you for helping her, says you have talked about this much before. You were not a "little voice"
LD: I was able to offer emotional support.

BC: And what DD had needed support with was JP situation.
LD: I know she found it difficult but that was not said.
BC: It was about the Essex cancellation
LD: Disagree.

BC: If not then what had happened to cause DD upset
LD: can't remember, 4 years ago.
LD: This was all about how to bring sides together.

BC: If division was not about Essex & cancellation, what else was division about?
LD: There were emails, and the film, lot's building
BC: What happend on 12th december to bring to a head
LD: Can't remember.

BC: [new page] mid 2020, Alexandra Marino has contacted you, says she went to a STEM meeting re Pride, says there's a letter signed, someone's complained, raising concerns with you as EDI lead capacity. These are quite historic things
LD: Yes - will just read the email

LD: Yes re the Stock letter.
BC: EDI lead re?
LD : re the faculty [describes many other EDI roles there are] we were a team

BC: You reply you are aware of JP, you list Stock letter, Richard Garside, WPUK, other things, you say JP in your opinion creates unsafe environment for trans people, you offer further discussion re this.

BC: You are officially faculty - and yet again instead of engaging JP you write to a third party offering to help raise concerns. You are again engaging in activity designed to shut JP down

LD: No not what I was doing, again I was raising concerns, was uncomfortable and distressed, keen to support trans staff and students

BC: That was not a rational response.
LD: Disagree, work environment affected.
BC: Not by JP - by your and others' reactions
LD: Disagree. I was uncomfortable.
BC: Nothing to do with JP at work. To do with what she said elsewhere.

LD: Disagree. Opposition to Stonewall damaging
BC: You isolated and ignored JP
LD:No
BC: You knew majority agreed with you and they joing in.
LD: No

BC: You chaired a module at this time [they look it up in bundle]

BC: July 2021 - you are co-chair. When did this module work start with you as co-chair
LD: 2021, 2020
BC: Who decides who will work with you. Did DD ask who you wanted
LD: I think people just allocated. I think I was because I'd done a previous related one.

BC: J about to move to new topic - you wanted to end at 4.30

J: Yes ok. remind LD must not discuss case overnight.
[END]

@threadreaderapp please unroll