"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Five nurses working at Darlington Memorial Hospital have filed a legal case suing their employer, an NHS trust, for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The nurses object to sharing the women’s changing facilities with a male colleague, “Rose”, who:

• identifies as female
• has not undergone any physical or hormonal transition and has full male genitalia
• has cited inclusivity policies
• is backed by the trust’s HR department
• has been granted access to a single-sex changing room for women.

The NHS trust’s HR department dismissed the nurses’ concerns, stating they should “broaden their mindset” and “be educated”. More details can be found at Sex Matters

The hearing is due to start on October 20th and is scheduled to last 3 weeks. To view the hearing online email: [email protected] [[email protected]] requesting remote access to the case of 2501192/2024 Hutchinson and others Vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust, starting 20th October. Also include your full name and your role in the hearing (eg member of the public or observer). Note, it is likely you will need the same full name and email address to log into the hearing, and the name will be visible to other observers.

The hearing will be live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets. An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets. Tribunal Tweets have more background to this case on their substack, including links to their coverage of the earlier hearings.

In earlier hearings reported at http://archive.today/nh5v9, the claimants were supported by the Christian Legal Centre and represented by Pavel Stroilov (solicitor) and Bruno Quentaville (barrister). The respondents were represented by Simon Cheetham KC. We do not know yet if the same representation will be in place for the October hearing

Background information from Christian Concern who are supporting the nurses via the CLC.

Captain Cynic in me wonders why oh why when it's a GC case there's delay after delay, techincal issues, sound issues, any issue going really, to prevent us seeing it, and hearing what is being said.

Surely they must know the interest and the numbers of people who want to watch this, why can't they prepare accordingly? They must have someone responsible for this sort of thing?

I came in for an update bfore going back out again. Haven't missed alot!

Fingers crossed it gets started at some point today.

This is a case that is mystifying lawyers who can't see what the defence can possibly be. Everyone expected it to settle, and it may be that this is being attempted now. They are not hearing evidence without us. I've known judges go beserk with counsel if there is no settlement when they think there should be one. But it could just be admin

this is a fantastic interview if anyone wants to watch!

Sadly my professional experience of widespread 'back room' court inefficiency suggests cockup rather than conspiracy is at the root this. There are honourable exceptions but they are notable for their rarity.

Dawn Furness is giving a terf master class to the tra outside the civic centre 😁

https://www.youtube.com/live/iEjmfJjLSoU?si=72EX9-Qw7ylXJ3Et

if anyone is interested

Are there usually such long case management beforehand in these times of cases please?

A rough start isn't unusual for what is looking to be a particularly complicated hearing.

Ha, love how he keeps giving a look to the camera as if to say, WTF?! 😂

This is quite long a wait. While may be procedural / case management - I'd say we are closer to attempted settlement other than everything else.

A month long case to say you were doing something the Trust now agrees it shouldn't be doing. The judge knows it a crock.

We are in

In but no picture

I'm in with sound but a black screen.

Black screen here too

Am in, can hear

Still WFTCHTJ, obviously in a different room!

I'm still WFTCHTJ, boo!

TT given permission to live tweet.

Me too!

Judge has specified that only TT and the press have permission to live tweet. Therefore we should be careful as to what we type here.

In the Peggie case it was deemed acceptable to talk about the case and our thoughts on it, but to not directly quote what is said in the court room

From TT

J discussing the room temperature and the media presence. Someone from Tribunal Tweets here and mentioned the practices and not being a media organisation.
TT Are you seeking permission?
XX: Yes, we were given the link..
J we grant you permission. This doesnt apply to established

media. Anyone else would need to stand up and talk.
SC discussing link to solicitor
J Yes, can be emailed out
SC Thank you very much
J I may have to repeat these statements re observers. We cant see or hear you to not be distracted. I made an order on conditions of access

J This must be adhered to [describes them]
We have no application from members of the public to live tweet so there should be not tweeting by the public. Just the press and TT can tweet. Are there any other matters?
NF Looking at WS following ruling I see the form RH and want

Clerk says should only be sound??

I will say the sound so far is so much better than in the Leonardo case, thankfully.

Still not in where I am....