"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.

From TT

Tech error.
BH disingenuous in meeting , even if found place would have been turned down by TA and AM prior to meeitng.
SC what could TA have said
BH - this had been going on since '23, she describes as first stage conv

BH it had been going on for ages, worrying and troubling behaviorus neither had read the letter, hadn't read about behaviour. Came in blind and judged us as troublemankers, making noise. WHole way through like this
SC not a long time

BH ye sit was hen theres a man in a CR alongside women who have been abused 2 years is inexcusable
SC not 2 years
BH yes it was, it was raised earlier
SC - TA said what she would do, why not trust
BH - bcos of previous meeting
SC - didn't anyone say you've already made up your mind
BH - no, senior HR people

I’m so sorry to hear that. That’s fucking horrific.

From TT

BH - and had made themselves clear
SC - why go to meeting then?
BH - should have been done earlier, a chance to be heard
SC - I say TA couldn't have done more
BH - no
SC - between meeting and claim form went to media
BH - yes
SC - statment pg 15, media engagement and public

Support you say you informed before issued proceedings
BH - yes
SC - important to cooperate with media to get fair coverage
BH - yes
SC - from that point you ceased to engage with employer?
BH - no, gave statements etc
SC - in vol2, no 1 - pg 401 - story in Mail on Sunday

From TT

BH - yes
SC - aware Sun was reporting?
BH - cant' remember speaking to them
SC - any of others?
BH - couldn't say
SC - you know 26th May Sun identified the Trust
BH - yes
SC - by 26th May this Trust, this problem with an unID person
BH - yes

From TT

SC - do you know if other signatories knew about media?
BH -yes
SC - happy
BH - no one raised concerns
SC - you list those you've met who are supportive?
BH - yes
SC - spoken to lots of people, in public
BH - some
SC - online?
BH - social media yes
SC - media and press iv's

From TT

BH - yes
SC - in these articles/appearances, you refer to T person not transitioning, stopping hormones etc
BH - yes
SC - agree theis is v personal
BH - it's v persoanl for a man to be in an F CR, many cases of women, inc in the NHS, being demonised
SC - you didn't know it to be

Uh, no.

😂

She’s excellent.

From TT

true
BH - no reason to doubt
SC - Roses ID became knowledge, you want your privacy but your actions led to breech of roses
BH - I'd say no
SC - you breech R's privacy
BH - he breeches mine and has since 2019 apparently
SC - do you accept after 20th may meeting Trust looks for

@Tallisker i had a simlar experience in another Govetrnment Agency- bullied into very serious depression and then sacked. Thankfully the sacking woke me up out of blaming myself and total paralysis and I did fight their lies, and won, so I left with a pension and my reputation intact, but it was appalling and I still have nightmares about the way my long career ended. It’s shit. 💐

Are they implying that if Rose hasn't stopped hormones it's ok for him to be in the women's changing room?

From TT

solution.
BH - it's an email not an alternative
SC - they were trying weren't they?
BH - were they? I don't think so it was urgent and nothing had been done.
SC - the posters we've looked at, page 1011, again part of iv with Womans Hour on R4. Top of page you say

Yes, basically.

I think they need a dedicated Bundle Bod (official title) to hand the witnesses the correct bundles.

Defence seems to be that the nurses were embellishing their stories partly out of a sort of group hatred. Once one asserted a fact they all believed it and spread it. So any attempt by the Trust to reach a solution was automatically distrusted and lacked support. At least, thats the only defence I'm hearing so far

I think it's more that SC is trying to paint BH as underhand and untrustworthy, i.e. that she has disseminated reckless info re poor Rose...

Oops, cross post with everyone. 🤣

SC is letting his irritation colour his tone of voice now at times. He’s not hiding it as well as he was.

BH - queen of the eye rolling 😂

almost like a... social contagion...

From TT

SC - we walked in to a poster, which was put up and taken down, don't know who pu ti t up
BH - senior team make posters we don't, typically it's senior team who put up warning pictures and stuff like that.
SC - senior team took it down straight away SW took it down

BH - wasn't straight away, don't know who
SC - cant be harassment it was taken straight down
BH - it is I'm an employee and it was put up.
SC - will come back to that. In 4th box down you are asked if there is an policy you'd be happy with. You drew up a draft policy for wes streeting

SC - sent to Trust?
BH - no they could have requested it,
SC - didn't know about it.
BH - likely listened to Womans hour
SC - another issue. ALlegations of frequent unnecessary visits to CR, want to know which allegations you are making. 8th July 24 walked into admissions

lounge - not you?
BH - no, if he was requested missed
SC - you say it was unlikely Rose was asked, and so it was harassment o fyou?
BH - not personally no
SC - 10th July, walked onto ward 14, to get trolleys. Not usual. RH displayed amusement, 2 people not needed

SC - if he had been asked would it be appropriate?
BH - yes but never seen him there before
SC - but if asked
BH - yes but he was laughing and smirking
SC - laughing not allowed
BH - he was jus tback frm his special leave, he was laughing and inintimidating us

I'm not observing (boo!) but unless you're fully on the trans train, defending this crap must be mind blowing.

The defence doesn’t address the duty of providing a single sex space, so it is irrelevant. Just blowing smoke.

From TT

BH - he is not the victim here, I've been limited in my role, in my job collecting patients
SC - it's not intimidation to collect a trolley if asked
BH - if he was intimidated or stressed he wouldn't have been on the ward where so many of us were.
SC - so Trust should have limited

limited where he could go
BH - no saying if he was intimidated he wouldn't have been laughing and smirking on the ward 2 days after returning, he is not the victim here.
SC - before I leave 2, did I hear Mrs danson say 2 people are needed to push a trolley

BH - if a person in it yes, not empties
SC - ?
BH - not sure
SC - account of walking onto ward and then off, you say second account is the harassment of you?
BH - yes
SC - want to deal with mail interception allegation, pg 22, you set out what you feel happened, opened wihtout

I know. He’s very good, doing an excellent job, but the fact this is even before a court is bonkers.

From TT

SC - your knowledge or consent.
BH - yes
SC - 2114 - 2113, see back of envelope, message 2114. Says Hi BH reviewed from data security, as envelope doesn't say private etc and your ward isn't there, would expect normal process to be followed - right?
BH - had my name
SC - we can