"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.

They didn't meet their legal obligations of providing adequate single sex changing rooms as required by workplace regulations.

Is there not some requirement to provide sufficient single sex changing spaces? I suspect that if the female changing room is a glorified cupboard, and the now "inclusive" changing room is larger there may be an issue there?

(Edited for typo)

They also didn't meet their legal obligations about preventing harassment by allowing Rose to use the female changing rooms

Thank you OP, I didn't realise it was this month.

I wonder, if you compare the cupboard new single sex space they provided for the nurses after they complained to the provision for men, if it will perhaps show that provision for women is far less desirable (especially taking into account the number of men and women who need to change)?

Your third point is incredibly naive.

Please do elaborate @Ereshkigalangcleg?

I agree with those posters about the adequacy of these changing rooms. I did mention this in my first post under the (admittedly vague) "issues".

The case though doesn't seem to be about improving these female only changing facilities.

Because this may or not be about a “genuine trans woman” in the way you are characterising it. His motivations aren’t really all that relevant. Plenty of so called “trans women” aren’t so hampered by gender dysphoria that they can’t display their male bodies in public and for many that’s going to be at least part of the attraction.

It is being convincingly argued in current tribunals that the Supreme Court judgment is a clarification of what the law has always been, not new law. In other words the NHS and other bodies have always been wrong to allow trans-identifying men into the female staff facilities. The fact that they listened to Stonewall, rather than looking at what the Equality Act 2010 actually says is no excuse. As @spannasaurus says, the alternative female changing room in Darlington is totally inadequate for the number who wish to use it.

Plenty of so called “trans women” aren’t so hampered by gender dysphoria that they can’t display their male bodies in public and for many that’s going to be at least part of the attraction.

Well that's the "so called" bit isn't it?! Someone who is male, sexually active and sits around in boxers with male genitalia asking women when they are changing seems to me unlikely to want to be in the women's changing room because they experience gender dysphoria. It's contradictory behaviour.

The Equality Act only covers actual gender reassignment, and even pre SC ruling tribunal cases didn't expect employers to allow entry to single sex areas of those "transitioning" just because they claimed they are.

Rose's motivations and actions in the changing room are very relevant to the claim - which I understand includes sexual harassment. Someone acting as he did, see above, is sexual harassment Imho irrespective of sex or gender identity.

A transwoman who acted appropriately/ didn't linger or look at anyone else/ didn't ask anyone when they were changing would be a very different case - at least outside this GC bubble.

The fact that they listened to Stonewall, rather than looking at what the Equality Act 2010 actually says is no excuse.

It's not a legal excuse but as a member of the general public I can have sympathy with a public sector organisation that followed what it reasonably understood the law to be at the time.

It was a surprise to many people that the Supreme Court interpreted the law this way:.it isn't obvious from just reading it.

I don't want every organisation that allowed transgender employees into same sex spaces, especially if they provided other spaces, to be sued. Especially publicly funded ones!

Anyway I'm distracting from the thread so dropping off. Enjoy your tribunal.

Your disappointment that public sector organisations are being sued for getting the law wrong - how is that tempered by their reluctance to put thing right with alacrity? FWS was in April, and every organization against whom a suit was filed prior to that date has had the freedom to hand in their cards, apologize, and reform their practices. Not a single case needed to come to a tribunal after April 16 this year.

And yet - here we are. At another hearing.

The Equality Act only covers actual gender reassignment

Have you read the exact wording of the Act?

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

[My bolding.]

Anyone can be 'proposing to undergo' a totally unspecified process at an unspecified point in time.

As for the 'but they provided a changing room' argument. No, they didn't. They provided a room. It doesn't have lockers or pegs. It doesn't have a double door, and opens to a busy corridor so all passers by can see in every time someone enters or leaves. And it's too small.

She's a busy woman, she may have been asked but not free. She's also (quite rightly) not cheap - they may have been limited in who they could afford.

I don't want every organisation that allowed transgender employees into same sex spaces, especially if they provided other spaces, to be sued.

Given a choice, trans identifying men aren't interested in 'other spaces' provided for them. They don't want to use the space, they want to use the women in it. For validation or voyeurism. Either way, women are not a resource to be exploited by sad or creepy men.

Ahhh yes, that makes a lot of sense. How could I have forgotten how the lovely lady doctor tried to get a nurse dismissed on the back of a bunch of made up non contemporaneous note. What a lovely person

Thank you for setting up the thread OP. I have applied for access and also hope to get up to Newcastle to attend in person for a couple of days. I think this case has potential to peak a lot more people. So far the cases getting publicity have mostly been in Scotland and I think a lot of people think NHS Scotland is some sort of outlier on this topic but will find English trusts are just as bad.

Quite. It’s a whole sex class of nurses vs one bloke.

And who do we see unlawfully prioritised?

Bloody disgraceful really.

Re Christian concern, I think this is another example of women not being the 'perfect victim' to excuse poor behaviour and justice not being served.
She asked for it
She wore revealing clothes/the wrong sort of clothes
She was brash/rude/forthright/angry
She is old/young/a mother/should know better
She held the wrong views/religion/beliefs
She has the wrong representation.

That is all very logical but I don’t think logic applies in any of these cases. Emotion and do-goodery seems to have clouded the Respondents’ minds. I’m swinging between the idea that it’s “the lights are on but nobody’s home”: a corporate situation where no one is taking responsibility for any of it, so no one is thinking properly/strategically. OR the Trust is full on captured and the TRAs are digging in (despite being instructed to sort out the CRs from Wes Streeting earlier this summer) and ignoring all the warning signs that this will be a massive loss. And worse their intransigence will turn public opinion to a point where trans rights will be set back years as a result. It’s the height of stupidity IMO.

No, any man in a female space is harassing women. Some are actively getting sexual gratification. You are extremely naive. Perhaps that’s your bubble?

Rose may not be a respondent but is he a witness?

Only if they call him I guess.

@NoBinturongsHereMate Dont know if JKR's fund would have supported them but they could have crowdfunded.

The "room" provided for the nurses was a cupboard. I believe it had space for one person at a time. Blatant discrimination. The cupboard should have been the space that was unisex.