In the course of her evidence to the central London tribunal, which spanned nearly three weeks last autumn, O’Reilly claimed a director on the programme had warned her “to be careful with those wrinkles when high definition comes in” nine months before she was axed.
But she lost the sexisim claim. Here’s the judgment. Some interesting stuff in there, about combined discrimination claims (tribunal seems to get that one right although Mr Galbraith-Martin for the BBC made some pretty surprising submissions on the subject., see para 244), and the decision that O’Reilly’s sacking wasn’t sexist is around para 300.
Here’s the other thing you might note….are you, like me, rather chatty and casual in email? Excited about someday seeing those emails in a legal decision? Let me tell you, they look quite a bit less witty and fun when they are embedded as part of the evidence. Uh oh.
What with the grey tsunami, I can imagine we’ll be hearing more about these kinds of claims. The Feminism and Legal Theory Project at Emory has a conference next week on this very issue, click here for the program. Was pleased to see lots of Canadians – Maneesha Deckha will speak about “The challenge presented by law’s premium on reason to developing an anti-ageist approach to law”, Freya Kodar from UVic on “Pensions and unpaid work – a reflection on forty years of feminist debate”. Claire Young from UBC is bringing “Pensions, Privatization and Poverty: A Gendered Issue” , and honourary Canadian (she spent a big chunk of time here at Osgoode about 5 years ago) Lolita Buckner Inniss from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law will theorize (Un)becoming women: Menstruation and menopause in legal discourses”. Of course there are many other wonderful things and people on the program too, I’m just pleased to see so many friends and pleased to see a multijurisdictional conference (there are people from UK on the program too).
Got a great new article on the subject to recommend? Please put it in the comments.