Thread by @tribunaltweets

We'll shortly be live tweeting the remedies Employment Tribunal hearing of Roz Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal in May was that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre unlawfully discriminated against Ms Adams and she was constructively dismissed.

The judge found that the centre’s chief executive, Mridul Wadhwa, was behind a “heresy hunt” against Roz Adams who held “gender critical” beliefs, and said that the review “was clearly motivated by a strong belief among senior management and some of the claimant’s colleagues that

the claimant’s views were inherently hateful”.

More details of the original hearing and related press coverage can be found here:
substack.com/home/post/p-14…

Abbreviations:

J - Employment Judge McFatridge
P - 2 Panel members
RA or C - Roz Adams, claimant
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
ERCC or R - Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, respondent
DH - David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent

Disc - Disciplinary
Griev - Grievance

We anticipate the hearing will start at 10 or 10.30am.

The remote stream is now live and the court is beginning to fill up.

J Good morning and welcome back. Remedy hearing and will hear from the C first. An application has been made for 50 ruling and the same terms will apply and haven't been opposed. The amount of payment has been agreed, so it only leaves the issue of a recommendation.

J Any other matters?
NC You have a skeleton from me? It may cast some light on where I'm going [all have seen it]
J It wld be helpful to take it sequentially. Then hear from DH.
NC The C is giving evidence, and then I'll make submissions
J I hadn't appreciated the C evidence

J Do you have witnesses DH?
DH No, I have a skeleton [sound unclear]
J It's clear where the lines are drawn in this case.

RA affirms

NC Y've talked about the impact on u about what the R did. Has there been anything ongoing since MAy?
C Yes, I was grateful and happy with the judgment. Was releived to be heard and trusted and hoped there'd be signif change on the matters. But things havent changed signif sinc

C It matters SU can get single sex care and workers shld be able to advocate for that. I work for an org in the same network and am in same training and the lack of accountability and responsibility by ERCC is hard. It affects me as they havent given a full apology or

C accountability. It's hard having this status of being potentially transphobic, so has an impact on me in many situations
NC U didn't mention the restrictions in place in June 2024 - the terms of the restrictions on publicity
C They relied on claiming what I'd done was

C sexual misconduct and this was terrifying. I'm sure it was an illegal attempt to use legislation. Having this linked to my name for months, until an ACAS meeting when it was dropped. They thought it was ok to do this to an employee - angered and upset me

NC The leaving of MW?
C Yes, discrim works both ways. ERCC had an Ix over many months which was broadened to many staff about me, yet when the trib found about the controlling hand and the recent report into serious overstepping by MW. Numerous cases of misconduct but I see no

C no evidence of Ix. In faact MR, tried to dismiss the findings. MW was allowed to take leave and by mutual agreement was "time for a change of leadership". No sense of MW having to take responsibility or risl reputational damage. Feels like a huge misjustice and treats

C employees differently based on belief. This email from MW and MR, who gave evidence and headed disc hearing, who has then been promoted to convener. MR wrote to main funders [reads regretfully unsuccessful in tribunal, board received it w sadness and humility and considering

C an appeal. The alleged conduct of CEO at uni may have been appropriate. They contacted re the event and are satisfied this event was misrepresented at the tribunal. They went out of their way to clear MW's name - by MW or MR. Rather than Ix the tribunal findings. ERCC say have

C insurance that fully covers the compensation.
NC What does this say that ERCC will make necessary changes?
C Before that, want to highlight p239 says whilst scope was widened they say the C wasnt disciplined, but I was disciplined and findings were upheld at appeal

C Tells me they're not taking on board the trib's findings and not willing or able to see the impact on me, or engaging in detail of what needs to change. Of minimising the findings.
C The statement of ERCC the day after the commissioned review was published on 13 Sept

C Time is right for change and MR has stood down. This is sense of mutual agreement and possibly MW has been paid? There's no sense of MW being Ix or talking responsibility. Of being held to account in any way.

NC Turn to page...
C This is the, it wasnt an Ix into what led up to the tribunal but was clear ERCC wasnt adhering to SRC standards. It wasnt about misconduct re the case but how it was functioning wrt standards. This report ended in Aug, zero core standard..

NC We were talking about MW's departure and standards..
C It says took time to get the evidence for the review, partly including because MW was on leave whilst the Ix was run.
NC You went to BP after resigning and does that have implications for how yr treatment affects you?

C Yes, I hear stories about ERCC and we share the same people and we dont have an advocacy service at BP. And with training is real crossover between the 2 orgs so know how I'm perceived by ppl working at ERCC.

NC Re the proposed recommendation, the 1st is asking for a public apology and that it's ok to have GC beliefs at ERCC. How wld this help you?
C The v different treatement betwn me and MW, them minimising the findings and promoting MR to chair of board

C Also MW secretary of board until Sept. So I dont feel another employee wld be able to speak up.
NC How does it make u feel that another person may be treated as u were?
C Makes me feel hopeless that going through this for years...has been really depleting to do it [tearful]

C and I hope no one else has to go through it for having sex realist views. They dont have these people's best interests at heart.
NC Do u think GC viewpoint is still supressed at ERCC?
C The way they still word documents on their website suggests they have the same thinking

C They're v celebratory re their self ID standards, and use language like "woman who has always lived as a woman", which isnt language which welcomes a sex realist point of view.

C [re new document] This is their ..."service is open to anyone who Ids as a woman". reads "We have a diverse group of trans and NB workers and will..." Always lived as a woman isnt clearly saying this is a biological woman. I've always said they need clarity re language but

C they're being muddy that front loads any meeting "we're trans inclusive" making it hard for SU to express a preference.
NC Apology published on website and 5 specifics we want on this apology and explain why y're ? not satisfied

C On Sept 12th I received an apology, as promised in Jan 2023 - it took them until the report was written to send it. And when I realised MR had become convener of the board. In the trib she stuck to her position and she was responsible for the letter re gross misconduct and she

C hadnt changed her thinking. I apprec her saying it was stressful, and was discrim, but they apologise for the language used. That's it in the apology which to me diminishes what they did. If it was only the language I wldnt have gone to a tribunal.

C They dont say staff can hold GC beliefs which feels fundamental, althou SU may hold them. They recognise there's more to do. But it was a private apology, not public, and it ddoesnt clear my name or recog variety of views in the staff team. I want recognition of what they've

C done. And what they'll do in the future to make things better. Seeing another apology from a similar case I'm struck by the differences between them.
NC What do you take re the contrasts?
C Is an apology to James Esses, and says: recognises discrim was unlawful and his

C desire was to protect children. It's specifc re failings, that they didnt fulfil their own values, empathy etc should be true for the org. I think that's true for ERCC too. So detail and ownership and it being public.

NC Re new document, explain if there's anything u want from an apology?
C MW and MR had said they didnt discipline me but that's inaccurate. I want them to acknowledge they did fine me "guilty of misconduct on 2 counts" and want them to say those conclusions shldnt have been

C drawn. I've delivered training to their staff, and my reputation matters to me and my representation to these ppl matters.
NC Y're also seeking a recomm for training on the EA re freedom of belief and expression. Why?
C As the tribunal saw the policies and email chain the Ix

C started from, the EA was misrepresented and prevented staff from raising issues. Esp right to privacy and single sex exemptions. It wld restore my sense of trust that staff are being trained as law as it is and know the info and policies make sense and stand up legally

C Staff need to know and be able to raise ongoing issues. For my sense of mistrust to be ameliorated. Who is giving them accurate legal advice on the EA in their organsiation?

NC Re another document,
C The report from end of Aug [reads re staff being comfy w CEO's position on GI and likelihood of speaking up] Staff wont feel able to speak up according to the report.
NC Can u explain why y're asking for recommendations

C Fundamental to the case, a survivor wanted to know if support was M or F, but the obfuscation re language continues so users cannot give informed consent. If words are ill defined, it's important users have clear language and it's still not there after many years.

C There's a lot of talk about women only spaces and services, but how any organisation can claim this whilst not defining F or "woman" - ppl cannot give informed consent.

NC [C has been reading] [eads re reassuring. Is this adequate?
C No, as they need to define their terms. Remebering the T inclusion statement and starting w this policy. This idea of an initial meeting doesn't reassure me. Many places y're offered a M or F doctor or forensic Ix

C U shldnt do this when they're vulnerable, finding their way thru muddy language isnt sufficient. What does women only spaces mean when u dont define it and it may include women identifying men. RCS the umbrella national body, who commissioned the report,

C made a statement saying they recognised wanting to know about sex and/or gender of their worker, so want dedicated services for women and girls - but they also don't define them. So how can they make an informed choice if they also say they have a self ID policy

C It doesnt make me confident that RCS are providing these services.
NC Are the conclusions relevant to yr request for definitions?
C Absolutely. The NSS refered to are about protecting women only spaces and recent strategy doc makes no reference to these, or times. ANd when

C clarification was saught, they still didnt give a definition or a working definition by ERCC. They said self ID was used. There's no reference to defining woman or F, and they refuse to make one. When asked about their adverts for services, the most important piece is the para

C [reads re causing damage and asking women to specify F only] - is saying really clearly that it doesnt meet the criteria and is a failing. But still they refuse to define these words.

NC [re another document] Does this meet Vicky Ling's standard?
C [reads re trans inclusivity and initial meeting and given option to choose] So it doesnt meet what VL says is needed to meet that standard, no
NC VL's definition of woman must be publicised & culture change needed

NC Bringing about and embedding culture and policy change...And in the context of those passages, look at SB's notes for an interview w Radio Scotland, and look at her answer where she says about not folowing policies and lack of adherence was the issue. Does this reassure you?

C No, it doesnt. They were fully aware they werent following them and SB is CEO of RCS and wont define woman and RCS have been asked to create that definition for all the centres to use. But RCS still haven't done that. SB has responded that the process was started in Oct 23

C survivors can make an informed choice, and then talks about trans ppl. She hasn't made a definition.
NC What about this delay?
C It's awful. How can they not define woman and say they have these services. It's shocking. They claim to prioritise women and informed consent.

C It beggars belief really.
NC We've talked about y're also asking for something about BP offering support?
C It's a recomm from the Ling report. They list multiple alternative places for support and their WL is sometimes full. They havent done it despite being invited to

C visit. BP is run by ppl who are well known in the network (from Glasgow). There's no suggestion they dont centre survivors. It's an ideological stance to not list BP so I want them to do what's been recommended and in the best interest of survivors.

NC Are you asking the tribunal to define woman or F?
C I dont think they can do this. There has to be no ambiguity and who SU are going to be supported by / in a group with them. I want it to be aligned w the EA and them to declare if they don't go w EA exemptions and why.

C As ERCC have said re initial meeting, which I think puts survivors on the back foot being asked about their beliefs. Even if ERCC define M and F in different terms it's clear for survivors so they understand.
NC You have asked for recomm re governance of ERCC and for an

NC observer from the SG or the overseer of charities...
C I have no trust that senior ppl or ERCC board are currently having the capacity to shift their thinking and correctly apply the EA and grapple w the complexity of employing staff w different beliefs.

c MR is chair and treasurer. I don't have trust in the board, 3 have resigned. They need more capacity for me to feel confident this situation doesnt quietly continue

NC Re changing the culture..
C This specifically says the culture needs to support SU
NC Looking at p243, is an exchange between Daniel Johnson and ? Brown. DJ introduces yr case and asks what the SG is doing and no further funds and a suitable board for ERCC. Has severe

NC concerns re staff being at risk. You see the answer...does it reassure you that changes will be made without yr recommendations?
C No, the SG dont get involved and wont comment as it's up to the board. If the govt and RCS wont deal w this, no one will. I assumed change would

C be insisted upon.
NC Those are all of my Qs.

J Are you happy to continue with the other counsel?
C Yes, I am
NC Actually, I'd like a short break
J We'll resume at about 20 mins to.

@threadreaderapp unroll