About 10 years ago, when I learned that one of my relatives had been fired from his blue-collar job over sexual assault claims by a female colleague.

His wife told me this. Due to my academic legal background, she asked me for advice on how to proceed with sending the company to court. I knew him closely and visited the family regularly despite it being spaced out, and this accusation sounded totally out of character. I stayed with them before moving permanently to London.

They were the perfect example of simple, honest, and genuinely nice people. The daughter was cute, although cheeky; the mother was devoted. They were all regular churchgoers.

He had worked in the company for over 15 years. I asked his wife to let me look at the file. The investigation concluded that "inconclusive evidence" was enough to dismiss him. His Unions provided lip service. The company eventually took the words a woman. I ran my investigation, talking to some of his colleagues and union representatives. He had clear support. I also learnt that during the paid time off, the accuser took for the distress that she breached the terms of her unemployment contract from people who knew her who claimed she operated another job when she would not have been allowed. This was still just hearsay, yet it would have been helpful to look into it as part of the process.

On the face of it, I deemed it a weak case, and it was worth it to sue them for wrongful dismissal. Although I did not study Commonwealth Law, I knew how to run a case, and Labor Law allowed the dismissed individual to represent himself or have someone who is not an accredited Lawyer do so. I then offered my relative to be that person, and they accepted, as they were constrained by means.

The mediation between us and the company failed, and I was then in contact with the Company's Lawyer. So, I went through all the weaknesses of the case. In the Criminal Court, it would not have stood as someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, in this case, it was a Civil Court, and the angle was to show the company operated discrimination on the "balance of probabilities" and botched the internal investigation with a clear female-driven agenda at the expense of a respected, upstanding and very much liked colleague.

One of the challenges was that the three character witnesses decided to withdraw their attendance to court for fear of losing their jobs. My approach would focus on tackling the weakest points of the company's internal processes, aligning them with their admission of sponsoring more women to join their company and cross-examine the company's representative.

When in court, I saw the Company Lawyer, a very cordial woman in her early 40s, yet you could tell she was a shark. She had her son attending to take notes—typical upper-middle-class background. The relative's wife and daughter attended the court proceeding, showing a unified unit to reinforce the supportive image we could not get from his colleagues despite the severity of the underlying claim.

The process was fair, and we exchanged punches between parties. Regarding the cross-examination, I managed to corner the company representative. However, the Company's Lawyer did a better job destroying the narrative and frame when she interrogated my relative.

My main mistake was focusing only on the attack and not preparing him enough to ensure everything was aligned with the carefully crafted piece case I made.

What did she do? What did he do?

She angled her questioning on the weakness of his answers rather than on the case itself, to which he was more focused, saying he was not accused of what he did, redoing the case of why he was dismissed rather than focusing on not giving her any ammunition to screw him over. She made him lose his credibility.

It did not matter what he was accused of but whether the company acted fairly or not. My relative's honest and non-shifty character eventually played against him, as he could not see through the questioning line and where she wanted to go.

Additionally, my real-life inexperience in pleading in trials made me overlook the importance of the defensive aspect (prepping my relative).

LESSON:

The truth does not matter as much as you think. It is what appears to be true when there is an asymmetry of information.

Whenever you deal with new people, they will flock to what sounds the most likely as what is the truth, so the framing of where you are coming from and the narrative you tell must be strong to be convincing.

The best at it tend to learn to hide the not-so-good stuff well out of survival instinct. Conversely, honest people don't feel the need to do so or learn how to do it because they believe the truth, and their honest character will be enough to be convincing.

Perception matters more than the truth, often at its expense. This is the difference between objective and subjective reality. Very logical individuals struggle with this, as they think only facts matter.

When in reality, the framing and narrative behind the facts are what makes them relevant; that is what they miss.

Thankfully, such claims did not impact his family but did reinforce it. I later learned that the one who accused my relative no longer worked at the company. I don't remember if it was because she was fired or resigned—so much for their admitted efforts of enticing more women to join their company.

As Sacha Guitry said: "Lawyers wear a dress so they can lie like women.".

‍