Definitely written by a human. Many thanks to David and Nadia for reviewing my initial draft.
In early 2024, I brought an employment claim against a former employer concerning unpaid work.
Following information provided by my former employer, Community Health became involved and supported decisions excluding me from EA Global and some local EA events. These decisions were made before I was asked for my account.
I subsequently provided Community Health with my account, relevant context and supporting evidence, but was told that this did not change the decision. I was not given a clear explanation of the process followed or the reasons for the exclusion.
The court ultimately ruled in my favour. I was paid for the work I had completed and received compensation, including for my legal costs.
Since then, however, Community Health has not, to my knowledge, confirmed whether it has reviewed its position, whether information previously shared with event organisers has been corrected, or whether any remaining exclusions have been lifted.
I am sharing this not to relitigate the employment claim or ask readers to decide who was right about every aspect of it. My present concern is the separate question of transparency about Community Health's processes and how information was assessed and communicated.
In particular, I would like clarification on:
1. Why Community Health intervened following a private employment dispute and what policy or authority it relied upon.
2. What information and verification were considered before the initial exclusion decisions, and why I was not asked for my account at that stage.
3. What risk Community Health considered that I presented and what criteria were used to assess that risk.
4. What information was communicated to event organisers, and whether they were informed that some of the information was disputed.
5. Why I was excluded while the other people involved remained able to attend EAG events.
6. Whether Community Health has reviewed or corrected the information previously communicated following the court's judgment.
7. Whether any exclusions remain in place and, if so, on what basis.
I would welcome clarification from Community Health, event organisers, job application reviewers, and anyone who received information about this matter regarding what information was shared, what process was followed, and whether that information has since been updated.
Please discuss only your own firsthand experience and verifiable facts, and do so through an appropriate public or private channel. Do not publicly identify anyone or publish private information.
I am raising this because I want the EA community to thrive and I believe community organisations with the power to restrict participation should have clear, fair and reviewable processes. Where an exclusion relies on information that is later disputed or contradicted in legal proceedings, there should be a transparent way to review the decision, correct inaccurate records, and explain whether any restriction remains justified.
I was the co-organizer of Summer Camp 2024, an independently funded event happening yearly near Berlin, with the purpose of bringing EA community members together to do silly light-hearted activities. As applications rolled in, we sent them to Community Health so that they compare them against their blacklist, with the stipulation that for any matching name we also get a reason why that person is banned. (Again, we were doing this voluntarily – the event was funded 100% from ticket income, and not at all by CEA, therefore applicant filtering was also fully in our control.) Laura's name was flagged, and in a private call with Community Health we were informed that she filed a lawsuit against members of the EA community claiming payment for work that she did not perform, and that her participation at our event is recommended against, lest she gather supporters for her case. Based on this point of view, even though uncertain about the actual events, with our organizer time being limited, we took the (safer) decision to not accept Laura to the event. In the rejection email we did not provide full details on the reasons, as we were told by Community Health that Laura could receive information from them on her case.
In hindsight, I regret this decision, and I wish I had dedicated more time to the case before sending out our rejection letter to Laura without course for appealing.