"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.

Another one from Covid times

From TT

refer to as threat of d/x action
KD - the letter itself is a threat
SC - has anyone mentioned loss of job
KD - it's one of the possibilities, disciplinary is a scary word
SC - are you saying they shouldn't have written to you
KD - it wasn't pleasant to read and put fear in me

SC - you also say the g/x is false and made in bad faith
KD - yes
SC - consider this, RH finds out that 26 colleagues have written to management to complain about behaviour with intimate details
KD - it felt like tit for tat, we had complained, so we got one back

SC - can you not imagine the upset
KD - I was very surprised that the letter was provided to RH and all our names disclosed
[missed q &a]
SC - one more point on letter, 'remind you of confidentiality' , can you agree that i/x in workplace should be a confidential process

From TT

are you aware that part of your case, that that was harassment
KD - yes
SC - if i/x should be confidential how can it be harassment to ask you to keep it confidential
KD - I don't know
J - questions on references

From TT

SC - let's move on. Judge - I will certainly finish by x-exam of KD this afternoon
J - good to hear
SC - you now refer to poster, do you know who put that poster up
KD - no I do not know
SC - you refer to RH unnecessary and intimidating visits to our wards,
KD - yes

KD - I was very surprised that the letter was provided to RH and all our names disclosed

[missed q &a]

SC - one more point on letter, 'remind you of confidentiality' , can you agree that i/x in workplace should be a confidential process

Hmmm, double standards? Moi?

When Cat-Attorney said ‘i’m not a cat’.

It was the Judge’s slow response
‘…I can see that’ i couldn’t stop laughing at.

Holey big girl pants, Batman!?

From TT

SC - directs KD to document, returns to visits, 4 allegations related to that, do you see that?
KD - yes
SC - just a question did you yourself witness any of these, take a moment to read through them
KD - no I did not
SC - thank you, you didn't witness any of these incidents

From TT

and you wouldn't be in a position to say whether RH had need to be there on those dates
KD - he would have had no reason to come to our ward for a pediatric consent form, we're an adult ward
SC - how do you know he wasn't asked to do it
KD - no one would ask him to come to our

An authorised cat?? 😂

He has a note from his mum.

From TT

ward for a form we wouldn't have
SC - and about this next one
KD - that's a job that isn't done by nurses, but by healthcare assistant
SC - and the next two -
KD - no knowledge
SC - let's look at RH's witness statement about why he was on the wards

From TT

KD - reading - I've finisehd
SC - is that a perfectly plausible explanation for RH being there
KD - I would still question it, not reasonable
SC - you don't have direct knowledge of the incident
KD - but I would still question why he was asking us for a form we wouldn't have

From TT

SC - do you agree that by July, anything that RH did would be questioned by you,
KD - I would call it intimidation, if you don't need to be there, why are you there
SC - but RH has given a reason and dealt with each incident
SC - just checking list of issues

From TT

[waiting]

Thank you to all the people posting the TTs

Is RH being referred to as 'he/him' by the trust's barrister?! Very strange!

Edit for wrong word

Dont think they were expecting the answer on the non-availability of the forms. Took the steam out of the later Qs from SC

From TT

SC - no further questions
J - thank you SC
J - I'm going to confer with my colleagues about what questions we might have. You will have to leave the room. Everyone will have to leave. It shouldn't be too long.

10 minute break.

Repeats witness admonition.

[Break]

SC appears to be aiming for "Rose Henderson" every time he's referred to but there's the occasional "she" and, from what someone wrote, the occasional "he".

Do you think RH was using that excuse to get a look at the 26?

Kind of like wandering about with a clipboard in your hand looking official...

Hmm, not getting anywhere boys. What shall we do next.

That's certainly how Karen saw it. Large (fragrant, obs) man appears in your ward unexpectedly, to remind her that he's still there. It's part of her claim for harassment, and he's obviously deposed that he only went in to collect an ickle form he was entitled to get. But Sc seemed to be of the mind that he'd put the q and so job done, not his problem if the answer didn't help at all.

Yes, that sounds very likely. He has a list of 26 names and he's checking them out. A few spurious excuses in hand if someone asks him what he's doing in a place he has no good reason to be.

Grilling her about the technicalities of the harassment claim seemed very unfair, as she didn't understand it (who does?) but I suppose he isn't able to Q anyone else in the court

some thems

I'm glad the judge stepped in. It wasn't fair. As she said, she's guided by her lawyers.