"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.

We are careful to comment on TT only

From TT

SC Looking at breast area a lot
KD I didnt see that as was only w him once and I was alone w him
SC You say you told BH about this 5-6 weeks later [Beth Hutchison] U say another colleague, nurse X, had also complained re RH. I dont want to name nurse X

From TT

as she's worried to lose her job or visa
KD We;ve had threats about our jobs. The girls have received threats. They havent received trust initiated disc actions though
SC I've heard sim concerns by a few others re RH. How many?
KD More than 10
SC But u say u cant recall them?

From TT

KD Leanne, nurse XY
SC U say u cant recall them all
KD They're all the names I remember from 2 yrs ago. But there were lots.
SC U say u strongly felt RH shldnt be in the CR and watching W change
Yes
SC U are free to hold that belief. This narrative about RH behav is made up

The witness is holding herself so well. We can't see SC but I am imagining him to look like The Irritating Gentleman.

<commenting on outside>

aw, they’ve all been lovely and thanked each other, no aggression, lovely end to a ridiculous debate where no tra was able to answer a straightforward question apart form the women who tried, failed but claimed, even when questioned to the point of “women get hurt” (boxing) yes that’s fair.

some comments on fiscal policy and staying out of the wind.

From TT

KD No. why wld I make it up
SC [describes length of time worked together]
KD 26 of us signed the letter of concern
SC We know concerns raised then but nothing b4
KD Ppl may have been too scared to come 4wd
SC But no-one complained before
KD I cant say why
SC Were u at the recorded Feb mtg?

KD I wasnt but heard about it afterwards
SC [new bundle] This letter signed by 26 of you on26 March to Dir of workforce. Were u one of the ppl who'd had advice from CLC?
KD I cant remember when in time I got the advice. We got help to make the letter easier to read

Unfortunately, that’s not the case for a couple of posts.

So, the argument so far is that no one else minded before, and so the 26 signatories made it all up to target the poor TW? If so, this doesn’t address the issue of the trust not providing a single sex space, so is irrelevant surely? Also the opp counsel is badgering the witness, and implying she is a liar. Not a good look.

I'd wait till close of play to comment on how it's going

From TT

SC It refers to harassment and T policies. And appoints Clare Gregory as lead complainant
Yes she was our ward manager
SC [reads re RH has stopped taking hormones and is trying to inseminates RHs partner] who gave u this info?
KD It was common knowledge

We are fine to comment on what TT are reporting, which chilling has summarised quite well IMHO.

Thank you

Simon Cheetham KC pic on his chambers bio.

KD would both have to have made it up and been an extremely good actress by the account of it.

From TT

KD I heard it and it was confirmed by another
SC Who told you?
KD Theatre staff told me. I cant name them.
SC On p1016, When RH was interviewed as part of the Ix RH said [reads re stopping transitioning and I'm not trying for a child and have never said I've stopped transitioning]

@Inks the judge said people cant live tweet. They have not said people cant comment on what is happening in the courtroom. If I describe what someone is wearing (I cant, I'm not watching) that isnt a live tweet.

You could interpret "live" like live share prices - delay by 15 minutes and its no longer live - but people usually wait for a break.

From TT

SC U have no knowledge of this
Correct
SC Yet yr prepared to sign a letter w personal info w/out knowing its true
KD I signed about my CR incident
SC Y've just said u dont know if this info was true. So what's in the press is incorrect
KD I took what ppl said as fact. Lots of ppl told me

From TT

SC Did anyone check if info correct w RH?
No
SC In mtg of 20 May 24, with Tracy Atkinson and Mr Moore. U say after waiting for 2 months and nothing done we decided to start legal action. But this letter of 26 was on forwarded on ? date. So the following month

I think we must reasonably be allowed to discuss the things TT have reported on, that's surely understood by the tribunal when giving them permission to live tweet. If the tribunal wanted to restrict discussion in real time, they could have withheld permission for us to hear in real time?

Completely agree we should hold back on adding to TT, and I appreciate the reminder.

From TT

Sc Here was a mtg the following month
KD We;d raised concerns in Sept so had been 6 months. Raised w matrons.
SC Lisa Lucky was secretly recording the meeting
KD She asked for permission from those in the kitchen for reflection. we didnt think it wld be needed for proceddings

It's not about the permission, it's about contempt of court. He was quite annoyed about something he'd seen and stressed that he's talking about a criminal offence

From TT

KD But not everyone knew it was being recorded and I didnt know u cldnt do that
SC Looking at the transcript, starting p309, see the various comments and at the end of the mtg that lasted 44 mins. Tracy Atkinson says [reads re safety in accom

From TT

and will speak to RH and management and looking at estate as we're open to solutions.
KD I didnt think she'd do these things. I thought she hadnt read the letter or wasnt addressing our concerns re RH
SC But wasnt the mtg about yr concerns?
Yes. There was no urgency which is why we took it further. we waited a few weeks

We've been through this for previous tribunals. Contempt of court would be reporting verbatim what is being said, recording it, taking screenshots, sharing screens etc. No-one here is doing that, we are simply commenting on what TT are reporting (who have permission). The order also refers explicitly to "live tweeting" - what is happening here on MN is commentary, but as mentioned previously, we hold ourselves to a more cautious approach to only comment on TT reporting until there is a break, when we can add any online observations.