Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon. Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is expected to resume today at 10 am. We will continue our live-tweeting the case. The Claimant was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre as a counsellor. She does not subscribe to gender identity theory.

Find our previous coverage here on our Substack.
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edi…

Our objective in live tweeting is to share proceedings fairly without bias or prejudice in service of #openjustice. Our live tweet stream is not a perfect stenographic record such as might be provided by a court reporter and we apologise for any omissions or inaccuracies.

Ms Adams believes that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity. She 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

KM - Katy McTernan (a member of R’s senior management)
MR - Mairi Rosko (Board member of R)
MS - Miren Sagues (Board member of R)
KH - Katie Horsburgh (Board member of R)
MW - Mridul Wadhwa (chief executive of R)
BP - Beira's Place
E&W RC - Rape Crisis England and Wales

Additional frequently used abbreviations
NCi - Nico Ciubotario (formerly chief operating officer of R)
SU - service user
SW - support worker
I/x - investigation
Disc - disciplinary
Griev - grievance

MoS - member of staff
WL - waiting list
AB - non binary member of staff of R
NB - non binary
CSW - counselling support worker
TWAW - transwomen are women
TMAM - transmen are men
WORIADS - worthy of respect in a democratic society; meets the Grainger test

Expected that Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C will continue cross examination of Katy McTernan (KM) this morning.

Currently we are WFTCHTJ

Video conference has opened - we are looking at an empty room. The clerk normally opens the conference a few minutes before the Judge and panel arrive.

Lawyers and spectators entering now.
Judge and panel have joined.
J - good morning, any matters before we start
DH - further case management, MLF and I had some discussion about this, both parties are very keen to complete all evidence within the listing, we lost some time

yesterday. I struggled to make it here yesterday because of Storm Isha. And another storm coming.
MLF and I have agreed that the remaining witnesses will provide witness statements, take those as read, and then do cross examination.
We don't want to go part heard, especially

on evidence. I have depositions (?) and these will form the skeleton of those witness statements. MS is supposed to be up at 12, we might need a short break for practicalities.
J - that seems fine. I suggest we adjourn early for lunch, you get your documents to us as early

as possible, so that we have enough time to read.
NC - Thank you to MLF for that helpful and pragmatic suggestions. I don't think I will finish with KM by 12 and may go well into the afternoon. She is the only staff member giving evidence.
J - so it many not be an early lunch

J - lets get started, reminds KM she is still bound by affirmation.
NC - good morning, what I want to do first is pick up a few miscellaneous points from yesterday before we go back to the chronological story. Turn to page...
NC - your answer yesterday when I asked you about

C's request for help repairing the relationship. You said 'if she returned, we would have done that'
KM - yes
NC - RA says 'concerned about r'ship with AB, how can I repair that'
KM - yes
NC - C was still at work, she did not go off sick for 2 months, nothing was done

KM - yes
NC - is it acceptable to excommunicate a colleague like that
KM - that's not how it was, it was a colleague avoiding stress
NC - 'I won't have anything further to do you with you" isn't that excommunication
KM - I had not thought about it in that way

NC - thinking about it now
KM - I can see that yes
NC - at the new initial meeting, what would you do if SU asked for a biologically female SW
KM - we would tell them we couldn't give them information about bio sex but would honour their request

NC - do you understand that some people would call that gaslighting?
KM - I don't agree
NC - and that some consider it a particularly cruel way to treat rape victims
KM - I don't agree
NC - if they asked for bio woman, would you refer them to BP?
KM - no we would not.

NC - why not
KM - they are not a registered charity, they're not inspected, we don't know about the quality of their service
NC - that's not the real reason is it, the real reason is that ERCC is profoundly hostile to BP
KM - no that's not true

NC - reading out AB email about opening of BP; 'landed heavy', 'get together to rage about it' , 'best love to you all in light of this festive stinker' . That email met with approval from management didn't it?
KM - There was a lot of press around it and the implication was that

we were doing the wrong thing and they were doing the right thing.
NC - ERCC views BP as a horrible hostile transphobic place. That's why you don't refer to it.
KM - no we don't because they are not part of the group of orgs we are part of
NC - we are onto

AB's description of email as 'violent and humiliating', rape itself is a violent and humiliating. Do you agree that AB was appropriating the language of rape victims to describe a polite email.
KM - that language is not reserved for rape victims. That's what AB felt. They can

use those words.
NC - now back to chrono of events. Meeting with M Shipton? This is the point at which the i/x widened out into a general investigation of C's beliefs.
KM - we had other staff members come forward with comments reports.
NC - the i/x was quite broadly into

RA's alleged transphobic views.
KM - it was based on reports.
NC - it was NCi leading the i/x, presumably it was MW who directed NCi to broaden the i/x
KM - we had advice from HR advisors, it was NCi leading i/x
NC so it wasn't MW who advised to broaden

KM - MW was not leading the i/xd
NC - (it is Lilian Shipton, LS) she reported various comments, saw something at trans inclusive training, then started picking up on small things RA was saying and working out what she really wanted to say.
Things like if we don't talk about the

binary, we are upholding the patriarchy. We need to speak for all SUs (means we need to welcome those with terf/transphobic views). NCi did not challenge those views.
KM - I don't know.
NC - is terf a term of abuse
KM - it can be, it can also be a descriptor

NC - isn't it routinely associated with threats of violence
KM - I don't know
NC - characterised LS as the thought police, seeking gender views, attempting to punish RA for them
KM - I don't think LS was looking to punish anyone, just relaying what she had observed.

NC - C was criticised for saying that ERCC should have a dialogue with the 'other side', meaning those with GC views.
KM - there were a lot of protests about specific things, appointments.
NC - that would be appointed MW, a trans identified man as head of a woman's rape crisis

centre.
KM - yes
NC - many would see that as provocative
KM - MW was best person for the job, relevant experience in the sector, well known for advocacy
NC - moving on. Now C forwarding email from support account, many of you would call that transphobic

KM - yes
NC - protesting about MW appointment, is this transphobic?
KM - I don't know
NC - you said earlier that all of the protest and comment about MW were transphobic, you've seen this email, therefore it must be transphobic.
KM - I had forgotten I'd seen this

NC - well please read it now and take time to read the entire thing.
KM reading.

NC - that email is a heart breaking appeal from a rape victim for the centre to recognise the reality of sex. Do you agree it's heartbreaking.
KM - I don't know that its about the material reality of sex. Its from someone who was upset about some podcast.
NC - podcast included

'rape can happen to anyone, including bigots'
KM - I didn't listen to the podcast so I can't comment
NC - reading out email - raped 15 years ago, and last night I couldn't bear to be near my husband. How could you put a man in that post.
KM - yes, but we wouldn't put a

survivor in contact with a man.
NC - but you have a trans identified man who runs ERCC. And you won't give any assurances about the sex of the SW you assign them. And if you said 'we don't employ men' then she knows that she can't trust anything you say because she knows about

MW.
KM - if she approached us, we would do everything we could to engage with her, to make her feel safe.
NC - but that wouldn't include assuring her that her SW is a biological female
KM - we don't give out that information about anyone.
NC - back to LS evidence

NC - RA seems reasonable, but it's obvious what she thinks - that's the clearest evidence of a heresy hunt, she's clever but I know what she really thinks
KM - I can't speak to what LS knew or felt
NC - reading out similar examples 'It seemed okay but I would ask more questions

in hindsight'. I noticed that many of her comments seem reasonable, and people who weren't informed on the topic she would seem caring, but I could tell what she thought - more examples of a heresy hunt
KM - I don't see that.
NC - now reading out quote 'not interested in

feelings of terfs'. That's a clear example of contempt for gc views.
KM - I don't see that's contempt.
NC - and NCi didn't challenge it
KM - nothing in the notes
NC - because contempt for terfs was acceptable in the org

KM - there was no contempt
NC - in fact contempt for terfs was mandatory
KM - that's not true
NC - 2nd meeting with LS, please read the passage beginning was shocked that someone who works for ERCC has these views...
KM - reading

NC - we seem the implication that C is being cunning is concealing her heretical beliefs, that passage puts it beyond doubt that this second i/x is because of a dislike of C's views.
KM - it was because of the impact of what C said, it was heretical

NC - LS says 'some toxicity from C's views' that's a dehumanising comment
KM - it was about the impact of her actions, not her
NC - no challenge from NCi on that
KM - I wasn't in the room, I don't know
NC - also, LS said C not absorbing the impact of trans training' that further

evidence that RA was not prepared to repeat the creed and accept GI.
KM - I don't know what that comment meant.
NC - now onto 2nd interview with C. Reads out purpose of meeting, I suggest that is really that MW wants RA punished for holding GC views.
KM - MW not involved

KM - colleagues were concerned about the impact of her views.
NC - NCi questioning RA on comment 'we should talk to others who hold different views' 'do you mean those who would not be trans inclusive'
KM - I'm not sure
NC - if someone says there are situations that should be

women only, biological women, that's trans excluding
KM - yes
NC - and that would be transphobic according to ERCC
KM - I should know our definition off by heart but yes, I think that would be transphobic, our policy trans inclusion policy says anything that would be hurtful or

derogatory.
NC - hurtful or derogatory? Lets look at the policy. Is there a definition of transphobia.
KM - reading policy. I don't believe there is a definition of transphobia.
NC - that is where you find it
KM - its about inclusion, harassment and bullying, its not specific

about transphobia.
NC - going back to the story.........
(DH - you were at 224)
NC - page 227, NCi 'it was also reported that RA said it would be difficult for transmen to go to men's toilets there by questioning if they are really men' makes it clear that saying that is

transphobic. So it's not allowed to imply they are women.
KM - similar to saying TWAM it would be disrespectful to imply that TM are women.
NC - that's ignoring that there might be safety issues for TM using men's toilets
KM - trans people have safety issues in many spaces

NC - but if you can't acknowledge that TM are women and are smaller and weaker, then you can't acknowledge the danger
KM - you can do that without calling them women
NC - but that's not what C said, she said they might have problems using men's toilets.

KM - trans people are at risk from prejudice and harassment in society
NC - the recurring theme in NCi comments is that biological sex cannot be mentioned, its transphobic
KM - the recurring theme is C's comments around trans people and their identity
NC - taking the meeting

as a whole, it was an inquisition into whether C held heretical or prohibited views
KM - the views are not prohibited, it was about whether C was respecting our policies and procedures.
NC - another interview, LCB. Talking about the eggshelly feeling, trying to get it right.

NCi said can you give me an example, used ABs name change as example , so obvious that there was uncertainty.
KM - yes
NC - LCB anytime that RA talked about trans people, it was with care and respect and a desire to protect service users.
KM - yes, that was her experience

NC - its a glimpse into someone who doesn't see every action as transphobic
KM - I don't know
NC - now on to interview with KM, was NCi seeking evidence of transphobia, you declined.
KM -that's not what she was seeking
NC - u don't think RA is transphobic

KM - I saw no evidence of transphobia
NC - well healthy working relationships include the ability to disagree, shouldn't they
KM - well the behaviour needs to be in accordance with policy
NC - is DEI at the heart of everything ERCC does
KM - yes
NC - does that include diversity

of thought
KM - mumbled, didn't hear answer.
NC - moving on. Directions to read. C's timeline of events, submitted to disc process. After 7 July, when final version of meeting notes were emailed by you to C we see that about a quarter of the way down the page, after that C

heard nothing more about progress until August when she was invited to a 2nd i/x meeting.
KM - that's what it says here, but I was on leave and I was involved in the i/x
NC - if that's right it was a month, she's under i/x, and a pending disc over her, thats a long time

KM - if that's accurate, it was a long time
NC - you say weren't that involved, but wasn't it unacceptable for no communication in that time?
KM - no comms from NCi during that time?
NC - none from you, her line manager, no inquiry as to her well being, none from senior mnmt,

KM - although I wasn't there, I would expect that her line manager would have had f2f contact with RA during days in the centre and would be checking in.
NC - next thing C heard was the invitation to 2nd i/x meeting on 4 aug.
KM - looking at docs

KM - based on this info, yes.
NC - and that explains purpose of meeting to explore new allegations of expression of transphobic views in violation of policies of ERCC. Didn't tell her what she was accused of.
KM - It doesn't give specifics.
NC - same day of invite, C asks for

more detail, expresses shock. That was a reasonable request?
KM - yes
NC - the response was 'about transphobic comments you may have made on several occasions'. That did give her any more info?
KM - no not really
NC - given the silence and then this ominous invitation can you

that was a callous way to treat an employee?
KM - I don't agree that anyone set out to do anything callous here.
NC - back to C timeline. Please read the whole page.
KM reading.

NC - that page and the next page and then I will ask you a couple of questions.
Reading

NC - C says in a supervision with line manager that she was stressed. Keep a finger there, and look in the other bundle at page 191. In her supervision meeting notes we see 'RA feels misunderstood and unsafe'. On 17 Aug, she email you and NCi, asking for a decision as soon as

possible, citing concerns.
KM - yes
NC - she asked you at a group meeting when she could expected a decision, you said beginning of next week.
KM - yes
NC - that didn't happen
KM - when I spoke with her, I knew that NCi was finishing the report but that I wasn't involved

anymore and had no influence or control over timing.
NC - C emails NCi, asking for resolution, response says finishing up and being passed to board, look out for invite. More time passes, nothing, finally hears from MR, will be invite soon. No invite appears.
KM - yes .

NC - describes f2f meeting in the kitchen, RA in tears with KM, its been 10 weeks, difficult to believe in an org that prides itself on looking after employees.
KM -yes.
NC - then her first contact is the invite to disc hearing, including gross misconduct
KM - that was an error

NC - it was a decision to include 2 charges of misconduct and one of gross misconduct
KM - that was based on advice from HR consultants, it was an error around our policies,
NC - gross misconduct wasn't included by accident was it?

KM - error as explained.
NC - RA was then signed off, what was done by org to look after her
KM - line manager kept in touch
NC - what support was offered?
KM - I don't know
NC - there was a run of text msgs.
(everyone reading)

NC - have a look through those messages, would you tell the tribunal where you see KT reaching out to C to inquire about her welfare, offering support or anything but the most cursory inquiry about how she is?
KM - I don't know what contact KT had with RA, she didn't offer a

welfare meeting but offered to meet with RA when she was well enough to return to work.
NC - its a sharp contrast between the manner in which C was treated and the enormous concern exhibited for AB after AB had had the trauma of a polite enquiry email?
KM - I don't agree.

NC - I would appreciate a short break.
J - yes, let's come back at 11:55.
Part one of morning session ends.

@threadreaderapp unroll please