Darlington nurses win their employment tribunal

Yeah, the bullet numbering on here is rubbish. If you have an extra line break between each bullet, it sets them all to 1. You have to make sure theres no blank lines between them to get it to keep the right numbers

1. Kinda
2. Like
3. This

Edit: Huh, looks like it adds the extra line breaks in the styling in automatically then.

The word partial is quite negative in this context whilst the specifics of what wasn’t upheld ( which weee he says she says ) give quite a different vibe to the whole report

words can be used To influence people’s thoughts and in this case the work partial was to my reading intended to convey a false impression - this is a victory for the women without doubt

Amazing news!

And if Phillipson can't or won't do her do her job then she needs to resign.

Following incorrect statutory guidance can't give you immunity, no. But can it mitigate the degree of liability (for doing at least some due diligence rather than just flagrantly disregarding the law)? And what would that change?

ETA there could be many institutions affected by this.

Not forgetting private companies who followed suit and are still stalling and supposedly need guidance.

That’s great news. Delighted for them.

fucking ridiculous that they had to take the NHS to court to get what they were legally entitled to, but there we are…

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! Thank goodness for sanity and justice. As others have said, we can celebrate having rights we took for granted in...1990.

AND the FUCKING government! Tory and Labour. For not just telling them what’s what!

Yes the trust fucking well did, as has every nhs trust and school and any other public building or institution!

It means that some of their claims succeeded while others failed. That's correct.

from the judgment:

1. The complaints of harassment related to sex and/or gender reassignment are well founded in part and succeed to the extent set out in paragraph 1.1 and 1.2 of this judgment: . . .

1. The complaints of indirect sex discrimination are well founded and succeed.

1. The complaints of harassment in so far as they relate to the use of the female changing room by and the conduct of Rose Henderson whilst so using the changing room as pleaded in paragraph 23(b) of the Amended Particulars of Claim, are not well founded and are dismissed.

1. The complaints of harassment in so far as they relate to the conduct of Rose Henderson outside the changing room as pleaded in paragraph 23(e) of the Amended Particulars of Claim are not well founded and are dismissed.

1. The complaints of harassment in so far as they relate to the conduct of the Respondent pleaded in paragraph 23(d), (f), (h, (i), (j) and (k) are not well founded and are dismissed.

1. The complaints of victimisation are not well founded and are dismissed.

1. This judgment is in respect of all claimants with the exception of Joanne Bradbury, whose claim is currently stayed.

Sorry about the numbering. It changed from what I pasted and I can't seem to get it to post correctly.

The next step will be sharing a photograph of a highly polished man in a dress and makeup. They will suggest that he poses an extreme threat to our marriages and ask if we are really OK with our husbands sharing a toilet space with him as he applies his makeup and flips his hair and presumably attempts seduction.

Only if you film it, mate. It'll be fucking gold.

This has made me so happy 😊

Bloody fantastic news! Even the Guardian is covering the story is neutral & factual terms.

Fantastic news!

Wonderful news! Well done to all those brave nurses. Makes me angry all over again for Sandie Peggie though, I hope she takes heart from this judgement and it will hopefully help her with her appeal x

Or better yet, Kermit could READ THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT which deals with this very question clearly & definitively.

But for some reason, actually knowing the answer would spoil Kermit’s game.

Nec Licit Alimentare Trollibus

Fantastic news!

He also applied for anonymity which was refused.

Yes I heard that. She sounded a bit nervous and fluffed it up I suspect.

I don't know but I don't think so. It is the Supreme Court (not the EHRC) that authoritatively determines the law.

So, once the Supreme Court rules on something then that is the law.

The EHRC’s role is to provide guidance to assist people to understand and comply with their rights and obligations under the Equality Act 2010; its role is not to determine the law or to interpret the Equality Act.

This is laid out in the Equality Act 2006.

It was also referenced in a 2018 case, City of York Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105 at [42] and [68], .

He was a named respondent in the case

Wonderful news! Thank you Darlington Nurses for taking this on so bravely.

I don't think the nurses took Rose to court as it wasn't aimed at him

Brilliant brave women 💪

In the great scheme of things I think it could actually be beneficial that Rose wasn't found to have harassed the nurses himself. It takes away any shred of doubt that it's the whole policy which is discriminatory against women and creates a hostile environment, not the bad behaviour of individuals who benefit from the policy.