On the legal findings: I’m not an expert in UK employment law [. . . .]
Under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, harassment occurs when “the conduct has the purpose or effect of—(i) violating B’s dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.” In considering whether the conduct has such an effect, “each of the following must be taken into account—(a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case; (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.”
See also section 1.28 of this guidance. So there is an objective element to the test, and relevant circumstances must be considered. So I think it is fair to infer that the external reviewer concluded that it was reasonable for Frances to conclude that the conduct violated her dignity or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. I also think it is fair to infer that the external reviewer concluded that the other circumstances of the case were not inconsistent with a finding of harassment. That would be easy; there is no legitimate reason for a co-worker to be circulating a memo about another co-worker’s rape or mental health.
Your post implies that CEA leadership is cowardly, indifferent, and complicit. But an organization that waived confidentiality, paid for your lawyer, never attempted to silence you, and whose CEO gave you what you yourself describe as a genuine apology is not staffed by monsters.
I submit that there is a sliding scale of moral credit for acceptance of responsibility based on timeliness (also true in the UK criminal justice system). These actions came awfully late for me to give too much credit here, especially to the extent that they came after Frances expressed that she would be going public. They could be construed as damage control—the reputational risk of litigation in which documents would come out and those involved would have to testify under oath would dwarf the risk of an EA Forum post. Even without a confidentiality agreement, a settlement is much quieter than the alternative.
Under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, harassment occurs when “the conduct has the purpose or effect of—(i) violating B’s dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.” In considering whether the conduct has such an effect, “each of the following must be taken into account—(a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case; (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.”
See also section 1.28 of this guidance. So there is an objective element to the test, and relevant circumstances must be considered. So I think it is fair to infer that the external reviewer concluded that it was reasonable for Frances to conclude that the conduct violated her dignity or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. I also think it is fair to infer that the external reviewer concluded that the other circumstances of the case were not inconsistent with a finding of harassment. That would be easy; there is no legitimate reason for a co-worker to be circulating a memo about another co-worker’s rape or mental health.
I submit that there is a sliding scale of moral credit for acceptance of responsibility based on timeliness (also true in the UK criminal justice system). These actions came awfully late for me to give too much credit here, especially to the extent that they came after Frances expressed that she would be going public. They could be construed as damage control—the reputational risk of litigation in which documents would come out and those involved would have to testify under oath would dwarf the risk of an EA Forum post. Even without a confidentiality agreement, a settlement is much quieter than the alternative.
(I am glad that we have a lawyer to resolve any ‘I am not a lawyer but…’ comments on here)