She stood up when a grant was given to the LGB Alliance, GC colleagues complained about her, she was dismissed, then she won her case for unfair dismissal.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I'm quite confused why a harassment claim was not included. This is textbook harassment. Not the best possible outcome but a more positive one than usual
I would guess the lawyers felt they could not show a course of conduct by the employer and didn’t/couldn’t add Mrs Fahmy as a respondent. (I am not familiar enough with the procedures to know how/why Beth Upton was added as a respondent in her case.)
“She was shown two anonymous statements from ‘gender critical’ colleagues who said being compared to racists had an ‘adverse impact’” The truth can be uncomfortable sometimes 🤷♀️. And if they think that is an “adverse impact” just wait until they hear about trans people trying to navigate normal life
What she endured for standing with trans/nb co-workers by stating how she'd feel as a WOC about "race-critical" comments in a work meeting! Sad the victimisation claim didn't hold, given what looks like the racist, misogynist, trans-hostile stance of the manager pushing the disciplinary against her.
Transcript is long but worth a read. His arrogance, insensitivity and disdain for her, and any who questioned his "off plan" decisions is stark.
And the credence given to 2 anonymous "impact statements" from 2 staff, upset she'd "compared their legitimate gender critical views to racism," was 🤮.
Sort of think we should make like the GCs and issue a bunch of press releases saying that it’s legit to compare them with racists and in fact it’s against the equality act not to emblazon that all over everything
It would be a great argument to make at the tribunal for example I have a British passport I was not born here or don't have any relatives from Britain. Calling me not British would be racist.
If men in my family accept me as a man, I feel like a man and have a male passport it's eugenic sexism.
Goes to show how stuck in the weeds of TERFism this country is when I saw the headline and assumed it was a TERF winning a payout for being a dose of reality
The CC case only failed because they found a ridiculous loophole that prevented the question being asked in the first place.
The findings were that LGBA are complete bs, but that Mermaids didn't have the right to raise the challenge.
The whole pretending Malcolm Clarke wasn't involved with the LGB alliance for what appeared to be only the duration of the case, so his public comments couldn't be used in court was more than a bit farcical.
It was a choice and one I don't understand as a non legal bod.
All the evidence was in the bundle already I believe (screenshots of tweets) so the judge had some idea what was coming with that line of questioning I guess, but still...
It's not an ideology it's a faith position, which is inherently impervious to being overturned by logic and/or evidence. According to the Grainger Criteria.
Fantastic. I believe this seems contrary to the Phoenix case, which unbelievably made statements that comparing "gender critical" statements to racism was a form of bullying in the workplace. Good to have a counter example to that case.
AIUI the Employment Tribunal doesn't get to turn a precedent into future law because it's a lower court where each case turns on its own facts, and the Employment Appeals Tribunal would have to be involved.
So in a future ET case someone could say "GC is racist because this case" and only if the ET disagreed could they appeal to the EAT and get a binding ruling on the general principle. Which could of course go either way.
Appreciate that, I guess I should have been clearer.
I was poking fun at how GC's interpret winning on a single complaint (usually a process technicality) and having the rest thrown out, but claiming some ideological victory.
No, because legally a protected belief has to be a faith-based position rather than an evidence-based one, or it doesn't meet the Grainger criteria. So criticism of a PPB needn't necessarily be a PPB itself.
I like this person. This is exactly what you should be doing if you’re a diversity manager. She has integrity and has stuck her neck out for others. That is admirable
Comments
And the credence given to 2 anonymous "impact statements" from 2 staff, upset she'd "compared their legitimate gender critical views to racism," was 🤮.
If men in my family accept me as a man, I feel like a man and have a male passport it's eugenic sexism.
The findings were that LGBA are complete bs, but that Mermaids didn't have the right to raise the challenge.
All the evidence was in the bundle already I believe (screenshots of tweets) so the judge had some idea what was coming with that line of questioning I guess, but still...
Every accusation &c &c
Chef's kiss 👌
Not sure I saw any tribunal coverage of this one.
Appreciate that, I guess I should have been clearer.
I was poking fun at how GC's interpret winning on a single complaint (usually a process technicality) and having the rest thrown out, but claiming some ideological victory.
See: Alison Bailey's frequent "I'm suing stonewall" cases...
And so ad infinitum.