Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning.

We will be continuing to live-tweet the case of Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre today. It is expected to re-commence at 11am

The Claimant, was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre as a counsellor.

She does not subscribe to gender identity theory. She believes that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity.

The Claimant alleges constructive dismissal because of her gender critical beliefs.

Abbreviations: J: Employment Judge McFatridge C or RA - Roz Adams, the Claimant NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant

R or ERCC - Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the Respondent DH - David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent

NOTE: NC had an issue with one of her eyes yesterday. She is hoping to be able to continue today. If not, her solicitor, Katy Wedderburn (KW) of Gunner Cooke will take over.

I'm in the waiting room now. Ready to tweet when the court allows me in.

I'm in and the Judge has entered the court.

J: Ms Cunningham what is your position
NC: I am OK to continue. If that changes, my solicitor will take over
J: Would you like to proceed?
[There is light coming into the court which is affecting NC's eye. Witness moving position]

NC: Tell me about your starting
RA: I was interested in how trans inclusion was going. I was told that there was no issue - it had never been a problem. She said TWAW. It was the 1st time I had come across that phrase.
NC: Staff were told about MW appointment in 2021.

How did you feel?
RA: I was happy about that - more people's voices
NC: How do you describe MW?
RA: She is a TW but she is not legally a women as no GRC
NC: How do you refer to MW?
RA: As "she". It's difficult area - I look to build relationships with people.

People have diff views about themselves. It's a courtesy on my behalf. Like I would call a catholic priest "father".
J: Could you slow down a bit please
RA: sure
NC: what happened after MW appointment announcement
RA: There were alot of emails - people concerned about what it

meant for the service. They were put in a folder called "hate emails". I listened to 2 podcasts MW did - I was concerned about some of the language she used. I was concerned about the names she called people eg "racist". I was concerned that this was something that we needed to

talk about. I was told that she was just being outspoken but would be more nuanced in the post.
NC: You had a meeting with MW in 2021
RA: I was pleased to do that and met with her for 2 hours. We had a wide-ranging discussion. I mentioned the anomalies - how do you see the org

working when we have people identifying as NB. She said that she was going to ask if the NBs were happy to be noted as female. Don't know what happened about that. People had written in about her not having a GRC - I went in very innocently, I thought we should talk about it

RA: I thought we should respond to people about their concerns
NC: Am email was sent in May 2021 - copied to all staff. Explain about that please.
RA: MW was new in post and there had been a survivor who had written in an email. It was a man. We didn't support men

RA: We told him this and directed him to another place. MW: said he should get support. He wrote back saying we should give him support. MW said we should too. We weren't happy to be asked to support a man. We wrote an email asking to pause the process so we could discuss this.

RA: It was a polite email. Other teams were involved so we thought they should know. In MW's response email there were concerning things. Bc the person writing in had a foreign-sounding name and she related that what we had done was to do with the person's colour.

RA: She was suggesting it was racism
NC: Can you refer to the bundle to show us where this is?
RA: [Reads:] "where does this leave us in our efforts to be antiracist"
RA: Refers to us as white-washing a survivor in relation to a person who was a minor. This was not good in my

view - a minor can't consent to be used in this way
NC: In Nov 2021 you met with Catherine Dawson (board member) - can you say what happened after the meeting?
RA: I was asked yesterday about my training - this is a good example.
NC: what is the doc?

RA: it's a survey about working at ERCC. I had some concerns about the policies re trans-inclusion. I waived my anonymity re this survey so I could talk to a board member. CD invited me to a meeting and I expressed my views. She said she would raise the issues with the board

but I didn't hear anything back re this. She subsequently left her position on the board
NC: After a training session with Nic Ciuibotariu (board member) (NC). We watched a video of trans- identifying people. They read out questions which they considered to be anti-trans.

RA: One person mentioned a Q about having kids later. I saw this as an adult expressing concerned about fertility. The trans-person saw it as coming from a place off hate. That stayed with me - I thought this was a reasonable Q.

RA: Scottish Trans Alliance made the video - I was concerned that it was being protrayed as hatred. I mentioned this and I was shut down. It was really upsetting. Two seniors where there
NC: who were they.
RA: One was Kim and I can't remember name of other.

NC: Re AB (anonymity order for this person) who changed their name. Can you describe, without naming, this person
RA: They originally had a female-sounding name then they changed to a male-sounding name

NC: There is an email from you in May 2022 and there is a response from MW in the bundle. Can you explain what this was about?
RA: There's an org called Smart Works which supports unemployed women to be outfitted for interviews. I thought it was worth supporting and I asked

if they would inc Trans and NB people.
RA: I emailed the staff team explaining about the service and I spelled Transwomen as one word. MW responded that it was othering and oppressive.
RA: I said thanks and said I would remember this in the future. I wasn't happy about this

as it made transwomen a subset of women. Which I don't agree with and thought it was forced speech
NC: why didn't you go back to MW explaining this
RA: I didn't want to risk the confrontation. I thought it would be incendiary. I had offered before to talk things through.

RA: I didn't want to pick up every opportunity to raise things and I feared for my job
NC: Please turn to another email from you and a table attached to that. Can you explain what the table is
RA: There was an global email about funding we'd received. I responded saying

it was great - saying people were obvs happy about MW's appointment. I celebrated funding and that there were people who would be able to use service. I said that I also wanted to hold in mind re this inclusion the people who were concerned about the trans inclusion.

These people shouldn't be vilified. I offered to speak to anyone about this.
RA: I was invited in to an interview. MW responded saying that they were working on a response. I said I would like to be involved. MW said this was OK and cc'd in Katy McTernan (ERCC senior management)

RA: Nothing happened so I asked about what was happening and was referred to Lauren (?). I suggested ways forward using principles of non-violent communication. I wrote a table re this which Lauren forwarded to the seniors. It was a way of communication inc to the public

RA: I talked about the vision of the org and how the work could be clearer about where they stand. We would benefit from discussion. I was worried about people walking on eggshells in and outside the org
NC: Can you explain how you felt about sending the email

RA: there was trepidation but I thought it was important to speak up and I thought I had something to offer to help the situation. There's a toxic atmosphere with this so I had anxiety but had support from outside the org to be able to think it through before writing the email

RA: I had nothing back from the seniors and then Lauren left. Nothing was taken up or communicated to me about it
NC: Kim Townsend, your line manager met with you. Look at the notes of the meeting and tell us about them

RA: They are accurate at the beginning - I filled in the initial session. After that, I disagree with it. My ill sister wasn't mentioned. I wasn't sent these notes (supervision notes) by Kim. So they aren't agreed notes

NC: As far as you were concerned re NB support workers, how were things left
RA: There was a team meeting in May and Kim asked us to respond re Q's sent in by service users re name change of AB (non-binary staff member)

RA: AB was not in the meeting. We talked about best way to respond to concerns. It was decided that it would be taken to senior management to see how best to respond to Qs like this. Didn't hear anything back so asked again. I don't agree with Kim's notes about this

NC: We need to move on to the main point of this case: the service users enquiries. Could I ask that we take a 5 min break, please.
J: Yes we will take 5-10 min break
[Session ends]

[Session resumes]
NC: [Refers to bundle page] There is an email from "redacted survivor". It asks if AB is a man or a women as they would feel v uncomfortable talking to a man. What do you think the service user wanted to know
RA: whether it what a man or a woman based on biology

It was important to them that they only speak to a woman
NC: could they be asking about anything else
RA: I don't believe they were asking about gender, even though they use the word. If they meant gender then they wouldn't have asked the question.

There would be no point in asking the Q. It's quite clear it's about sex not gender
NC: what did you do about this?
RA: It was my job to respond. There was urgency to this so I send an email from the support email account to Kim and the user. I asked for guidance. my instinct was

to say AB was born female but now identifies as NB. I was aware that other people would respond differently
NC: How many people did that email go to and could others have seen it
RA: other members of staff team could see it in the sent items. I was only staff member on duty so

it just went to two people.
NC: Did anyone ask you to delete it from the sent box or did anyone delete it?
RA: No, it was never deleted
NC: There's another email from KT (Kim Townsend). Was her email to the service user adequate?

RA: No. She'd asked for advice and had said to user that there were no men on the advice team. It wasn't sufficiently clear to answer the user's question bc MW is legally and biologically male. In ERCC policy they would continue to employ a person that is trans-identified.

It's very muddy
NC: would you expect people to know about MW's status
RA: she's very open about it but it's possible for some to know and other's not to
NC: You were told by NC that there was a disciplinary. Who do you think made the decision?
RA: I believe it was MW

RA: I have more info now than I did then. It seemed at the time a very heavy-handed response. MW had advised Kim saying it was against Eq Act so it was serious. I also wondered if AB had made a complaint
NC: How was the response to your enquiry. Were you concerned?

RA: No. It seemed like it was reasonable for me to ask the Q. Kim said she had forwarded it to MW and it seemed fine.
NC: your response on same day (15 June). Why did you respond in this way
RA: Kim said it was against EA so I asked what the legal framework was.

RA: I asked for clarification on EQ Act. I understood PC was gender reassignment. I felt we needed to sort this out in a way that was clear and legal
NC: the next day, AB responded. What did you make of that?
RA: There were more email earlier that day re training about it

RA: AB wanted to be removed from email chain. Seemed unhappy to be included in legal discussions.
NC: You sent another message from your own account to AB a few days later. Why did you send this?
RA: I saw ABs discomfort and was concerned about this.

RA: I saw another email expressing shock at what I'd done so I contacted AB. I asked AB if AB wanted to have a meeting. i expressed regret that I had mentioned that there was no legal recognition for NBs. I was expressing concern to a colleague, recognising that they might

not have a conversation at that moment
NC: Email from KT to you on 18 June.
RA: This email made me think that AB was more upset than I had realised. There had been no chat with me. Five days after initial email from me asking for advice. My line-manager emailed me CCing in 2

senior managers. She said she was shocked at my email and that it was against policy to give details about a member of staff
RA: She said they were going to change process so it wouldn't happen again. I was upset to receive this - felt very heavy-handed. We could have had a

conversation but she copied in other staff so I felt she was making a point
NC: you had another email. Was this during work hours
RA: No. I felt that we weren't talking about what this was really about - making sure a service user was concerned about the service we provided

RA: I said sorry if AB was upset. Then I said why I wanted to mention biological sex in order to respond to the user's concerns. Male violence is greater than women's and women have smaller, weaker bodies. I wanted to find a shared understanding about male violence.

The Service user wasnot asking out of prejudice. They would be concerned about male bodies being in a space if they came to ERCC. So I thought it was reasonable for them to ask the Q

RA: I felt my response was reasonable. In the email I also suggested that we could add Qs to referral form so that we could find out before assigning help. So that users could specify male or female help. I thought it would help resolve situation and help with future occasions

NC: You were notified about the disciplinary investigation. How did you feel?
RA: I was horrified. I thought I had done the right thing and had explained myself. There had been no response to me and then suddenly I was told there was to be a disciplinary.

RA: I couldn't understand what they thought they coud achieve. i was really scared. it felt disproportionate
NC: We see notes of the meeting with you. Please describe how that meeting felt to you
RA: To start with, I didn't know what the meeting was about.

RA: I gave a clear explanation of why I'd done what I'd done. I was trying to use the language of the survivor. I just gave an explanation of everything that they asked. It seemed quite long and then it went into email exchange with AB and mentioned by apology.

I was surprised about this. But it seemed to go OK and I asked at the end how I could repair the situation with AB. I told them I felt vulnerable bc of the investigation and because other staff were being asked about me
NC: [refers to page in bundle] What are we looking at?

RA: On same day as I sent message to AB. There's a messaging platform called Slack so we could share news and resources etc. It was for company-wide announcements. AB posted about the email exchange and shared a Guardian article saying public aren't afraid of transpeople existing

RA: AB also said transphobes would die out quickly and their views would become obsolete. A colleague said she had hopes for the new generation and called LGB Alliance a transphobic org. Said Sonia Sodha was transphobic. I felt this was pointed at me

NC: how old is AB and how old are you?
RA: AB is in their 30s and I'm 52
NC: you were upset and took messages personally
RA: yes I took it to KT. I was told that I was being overly sensitive. AB was never challenged about it

NC: Looking now at email from MW to AB and KT. You wouldn't have seen this then but looking at it now, we see MW saying transphobia exists here as elsewhere. The convo will be hard to hear for transpeople. What meeting is MW talking about?

RA: Rape Crisis were going to have a meeting and I had been told that it was ok for me to express concerns.
NC: what happened in the meeting
RA: 2 Qs were asked by Rape Crisis. 1/ why is it important that we are trans-inclusive?

Can't remember details of 2nd Q. I was put in breakout room with NC, AB anda couple of other people. We said hello, then AB said they had a phone call and left.
NC: were you aware that AB had been told that they didn't have to have contact with you

RA: No - that hadn't been communicated with me
NC: I'm about to move to a new topic
J: We will adjourn until 2pm then.
[Session ends]

@threadreaderapp please unroll