"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.

It’s not my morning. I got in with video not changing any settings. I just leave, re-enter my passcode WFTCHTJ and then I’m in.

Thank you @ickky , though. I’ll bear that in mind if it happens again.

My latest glitch is that, once in, I went to this thread. When I came back to the app the picture disappeared.
My solution is not to click away, and to access MN on my phone. I’m sorry, most beloved @MyrtleLion, when in disguise I did offer to do TT when you are finally released but I can’t manage that on my phone.

I do hope to read very soon that your escape has started 🪻

It’s difficult to follow.

No posts for 12 minutes...

If he put a witness statement in then I'm sure he has to be called and cross examend

From TT

NF - where was single indiv changing facility, what is that?
BH - meeting room. There is a changing room.
J - relative to this room, how big.
(BH demonstrates visually)
NF - Pictures. Turn to 2085 in bundle. (missed) Depicts longer of ward corridors. Do you recognise it?

(EArlier - "There is a changing room" should say "There is a cubicle")
NF - Which is it?
BH - This one here.
(Orientating themselves)
NF - 2086

BH - Can't be sure of which the door is - signs are always there. 2087 is definitely the meeting room. All sorts of things go on - meetings, huddles, baby shower.
NF - (missed)
BH - all sorts of things stored in there.
NF - Claire Gregory's old office. Almost there.

NF - On p24-25 of witness bundle, about i/x. P 407.
Is that statement prepared for resolution procedure. And 427, responses to questions raised to you.

No more qus.
SC - Mrs Hutchison. Starting with essentials since 2018.
BH - yes.
SC - p5 WS. Section re RH - tell trib early 2023 first met RH. On another ward. Brought patient back from theatre. "First became aware of RH using CR in 2023." Became aware throgh Joanna Bradbury?
BH - y

SC -when did youstart using cr after covid. July.
BH - Off for miscarriages, then 2021 had pregnancy. Sep 2022 returned from mat leave.
SC - can youdispute Roseusing CR since 2019?

I don’t think he can be compelled to appear but if he doesn’t and therefore can’t be cross examined on it I don’t think the tribunal will afford his statement much weight.

No stenographers in the court I assume? Peggies backer was wise to get that sorted.

Thank you TT - its an invaluable service.

I think TT is writing the posts in draft and then posting, hence the delay in posting and the fragmented threads.

I loved the way she said that.

I am falling in love

I love this witness.

An excellent witness so far

💘

She’s brilliant

From TT

2023 - no interactions with RH? Remained the case?
BH - conv when changing he walked through door, looked masculine, got shock. I walked out.
SC - Were you ever alone with RH?
BH - only on that one occasion.
SC - P10 of little bundle press release of CC p 11.
SC - "There have been times when I havebeen alone with Rose and panicked."
BH - misprint.

SC - so one occasion you just told us?
BH - yes.
J - only occasion?
BH_ yes.
SC - all claimants have made allegs concernign RH and want to know which are yours.

SC - p116. List. Not doc you created. We have allegs of harassment. First is using cr. More specific ones. First one not by you?
BH - No.
SC - second one, not one you personally exp?
BH - No.
SC - third, initiating conv
BH - not me.

Several Q&A missed, technology issues.

SC - go to vol 2, part 1,
[bundle shuffling]
J - do we know what we're looking for
SC - what we're looking at is transcript of you on Radio 4 Woman's hour, section says 'originally quite hostile', 'this isn't a campaign against this person, they have been a catalyst, raised

awareness of the issue, RH's presence has been a catalyst for change, agree?
BH - yes
SC - so you've created a narrative around Rose,
BH - I think that's outrageous that you are saying that we are lying, that women forced to change in front of a man, women that have suffered

What did she say?

Sorry. I'm just trying to catch up. So when did Rose actually transition? 2019? And then stopped taking hormones again?

From TT

sexual trauma, to say we are lying,
SC - I didn't say you were lying
BH - embellished, exaggerating whatever
SC - its a narrative
BH - it's outrageous that you would say that
SC - well we will have to agree to disagree
BH - yes

She’s been making me reflect on how mature and professional the claimants are when questioned, in this case, in Peggie and in Kelly.

She is such a great clear communicator and thinker. So great to have this evidence given out loud in court.

From TT

SC - would your views on RH be any different if they had fully transitioned
BH - no
SC - directs to page in bundle, this is the transcript of meeting on 19 Feb, this meeting discusses the matter we are concerned about, at 13:43, you say 'that's the thing where do we draw the

Paraphrased

SC asked if her objection to RH in the changing room was purely because he is a man/male. She replied absolutely in a strong manner.

From TT

line, I would be more comfortable with people who had been fully transitioned' was that your position then
BH - no, its not my position. I was trying to get them engaged with the idea, some women are more comfortable with those who have done more to look like women,

From TT

SC - May meeting someone else says 'people might be more comfortable if RH had fully transitioned' is that your view
BH - no it is not
SC - now going through timeline, from when you raised concerns with Sister (not giving evidence)
BH yes
SC - were you aware she was asked to

From TT

participate in resolution procedure
BH - no
SC - you say 'I raised my concerns', was she your immediate superior,
BH - yes
SC - was it an informal chat
BH - it was an informal chat about a serious concern
SC - you complained about the Trust's lack of response, who failed to