Heather Savigny
On today’s episode Julie talks to Heather Savigny, formerly Professor of Gender Studies at De Montfort University in Leicester in the United Kingdom. Heather supported a student – whom she had witnessed being sexually harassed by a male faculty member at a departmental social – in bringing a complaint. The result was not what Heather expected: she ended up leaving the university after being bullied and threatened with discipline for supporting the student, who was distraught when the man who harassed her returned to work despite the complaint being upheld. Heather’s experience is unfortunately consistent with what many students and faculty who become involved in trying to hold faculty sexual harassers to account describe.
Heather’s most recent book, Cultural Sexism: The Politics of Feminist Rage in the #MeToo Era, is published by Bristol University Press.
Heather wrote in July 2020 for the Political Studies Association, “What does #MeToo tell us about NDAs? (And why I wouldn’t sign one).”
In Other News
Randi Druzin
Guest Other News Correspondent Randi Druzin shares the following stories: on March 18th, the Canadian government announced its support for Éducaloi, an organization that works for better access to justice in Quebec; in Ontario, the provincial government has announced a new multi-year plan, “Justice Accelerated,” to speed up access to the justice system; and The National Collaboration for Youth Mental Health has purchased the rights to the screenplay for “The Vexatious Litigant,” a satirical comedy about the life of a self-represented litigant who cannot afford a lawyer and who struggles to gain access to the justice system.
“Government of Canada supports access to justice for seniors in Quebec” (Cision News Wire)
Ontario’s Justice Accelerated Strategy (Ontario Government)
Youth Mental Health charity purchases rights to “The Vexatious Litigant” screenplay (Financial Post)
Jumping Off the Ivory Tower is produced and hosted by Julie Macfarlane and Dayna Cornwall; production and editing by Brauntë Petric; Other News produced and hosted by Randi Druzin; promotion by Moya McAlister and the NSRLP team.
I’ve just read through the article, What does #MeToo tell us about NDAs?, because NDAs are another of the many subjects that interest me.
.
I was once offered – over the phone by a union staff lawyer – $7500 to walk away from a termination grievance for which an arbitration hearing had been scheduled. I don’t know exactly how that would have played out if I had agreed to take the money. Though the union had made no preparation for the hearing it did take place, and thus kicked off years of litigation.
.
I’ve since heard from other people about their experiences with the labour law regime, including in arbitration hearings which ended with settlements (and thus no published “award”). While such settlements need only the signatures of the union and the employer to be legal, I expect that if someone is receiving money their signature will be sought too and that what they sign will likely include an NDA. Sometimes that might appear to the person to be in their best interest, but even when it’s not I expect most people voice, at most, only token opposition to agreeing to an NDA. That is in part because the whole process is orchestrated by the experienced parties and the arbitrator. There may be no mention of an NDA until the agreement is drawn up in writing. It is quite common, I believe, for someone to agree to a settlement and then very quickly regret doing so. Has anyone subsequently successfully argued that they signed under duress?
Chris – I think that NDAs have become a real problem because they are a default now. This is often with the complicity of lawyers on both sides. I believe that where there are public interest implications there should not be an NDA and where there is an exceptional reason this can be dealt with by a narrow confidentiality clause protecting just one side. More here https://profjuliemac.com/activism-and-advocacy/sexual-violence/non-disclosure-agreements/
The union lawyer who was determined to prevent my termination case from going to arbitration suggested to me that I would regret insisting on having a hearing because it would produce a record that would impact my future career prospects. A similar argument could be made to a significant proportion of those contemplating litigation.
.
Just now a Google search on “labour arbitration” and “non-disclosure” found B.C. Labour Relations Board decision B95/2014 – https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bclrb/doc/2014/2014canlii27506/2014canlii27506.html, which was written by someone who, as a staff lawyer, represented that tribunal in one of its engagements with me in court. The term “non-disclosure” appears only three times, but another term of interest – “open court principle” – appears thirty-five times. What does “open court principle” mean in Canada? I’m not sure, but now I want to find out. (I’ve had the experience of witnessing a hearing conducted by a BCSC judge in a “closed” courtroom.)
.
The practice of labour arbitration in Canada is not in compliance with what I think the term “open court principle” ought to mean.
My heart goes out to Heather. OMGawdess. Different women, SAME FGD STORY.
https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2019-07-29/features/university-ordered-to-pay-thousands-for-relocating-professor/