"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

J - how does it feel
BH - not pleasant

SC - last qu - pg1729, 1730. Part of an article in Mail online 12th april '25, 2/3 way down, Bethany youngest of nurses who led the revolt...
J - can't see
SC - after that a line, this case isn't about Rose, its the Trust, not RH persoanlly
SC - you've made it all abou t RH personally
BH - no
SC - all the iv's - tv press, radio it's not about RH?
BH - no in all of those I've made it clear it's about the Trust.
J - how long?
SC - another hour I think
J - swearing in Mr Hutchinson after that? And others?
We'll break.

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.

Is he implying here that because she did not see the notice directly it did not affect her?

Maybe the MET need to be told this

A non-crime hate incident (NCHI) is is any incident that is perceived by the victim or another person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on characteristics like race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity, but does not amount to a criminal offense.

Dont know any discrimination law so not sure of relevance of press coverage of RH. SC's done a decent job suggesting that his privacy was undermined, but he's not suing the nurses is he?

They must be saying they did not put up the poster and took it down as soon as they knew about it, so that element of the harassment claim was a) short-lived and b) not done by them

A big boy did it and ran away.

Is ‘Rose’ a (how can I put this) vocal TRA, i wonder?

Cos, I’m betting that he tells everybody who crosses his path that he’s ✨trans✨.

@BettyBooper It's a bit hard to follow the TT. (I am very grateful for TT! It's just that the nuance of what's happening is difficult to capture).
If someone could do a small overview in the break I'd be very grateful.

Me too!

The acts of an employee are always the responsibility of the employer in law.

RH was emboldened by NHS to put that poster up as now it is clear it was him.

I'm not observing, and there is general admiration here for how well BH is dealing with the qq, but I have a small concern that if she is over-combative,
[a] panels are human, and they make not appreciate that and
[b] IF the other side manage to find a discrepancy, an inaccuracy, an exaggeration of fact in what she says, they are going to make much of it on the basis of 'If she was inaccurate about that, what else is inaccurate in her testimony'.
I hope I'm wrong.

The eye-rolling at the questioning continuing after lunch seems a bit dismissive - everybody there is doing their job, and it takes whatever time it takes.

My tuppence are as follows:

Mrs H is an engaged, informed, smart individual. She cares for her colleagues and she knows and says clearly this isn't about Rose, but about the NHS's approach in disregarding women's right to privacy and single sex changing rooms.

She hasn't been rattled. She knows her power. She keeps bringing her answers back to the point in question. It was not ok that since 2019 a man had been parading in boxers in the women's changing room. And not just Rose, it is not ok that any many no matter how many times he says he is a woman, men are men are men. And they can be in men's spaces - there are room for them elsewhere.

For anyone who cares, she tall, blonde, in a fab white suit, well groomed, fabulous eyeliner and nails. It shouldn't matter but in a court/ tribunal looking the part helps.

NHS Darlington were slow in responding and weren't giving much ground. But they didn't do squirrels on crack approach of no process, bullying, issuing press statements themselves and so on.

So Darlington were wrong in not delivering single sex spaces - but defence is this is pre SC confirmation of the law, we were addressing the nurses concerns via the resolution procedure, and as they went to the press and said hurtful facts about Rose - they were putting him in harms way.

There was a moment when SC said, as Rose will say, or as Rose's statement will say..... so maybe @Justabaker is right and Rose isn't turning up to trial.

I am in awe of how she is holding her own. Powerful to watch, and on point for all TERFs.

I share Nauticant's concern about over-confidence, especially as at the same time BH is denying any hostility towards RH.

Just before lunch the judge did direct her back the questions answered by SC and press her on a specific point. So he's not just letting her run away with herself. And she's not being outrageous. Most of the time she is calm, waiting with head tilted for the next question and isn't hurried when reading from the bundle.

She is a credible witness - but yes the court would like more direct yes or no answers.

It seems like belief in GI is widespread and entrenched within NHS management. Amongst workers, perhaps not so much.

Questions for those that have experience of the process.
When interviewing for management positions is there an expectation that you will accept GI beliefs?
Would you be asked about trans identities at all?
If you expressed a non-GI belief would that extinguish you chances of getting the position?

It seems odd that management do not question these positions unless management represents a filtered pool of opinions

edit spelling

Thank you, I'm glad to hear that.

I noticed the correction about RH giving evidence, too, and it will definitly weaken the allegation he was supposed to make that the nurses are making up all the horror. But I don't blame him for not wanting to lock horns with NF, who I reckon is a jovial assassin

Thanks so much for this!

He is saying that when the Trust suggested they were goign to investigate concerns raised by Rose they were right to do so as Mrs H as an employee was sharing private information or false information about another employee to the press. Its a defence to the point the Trust were harrassing the nurses. They are saying the Trust was justified in writing to the nurses, following their own procedures and keeping it in the Trust. Why I have sympathy with to some extent. You do have to exhaust internal procedures and you have to comply with internal procedures in the main.

My feeling, for what it's worth, is that BH is a formidable advocate but perhaps not an ideal witness - I agree that she's a bit combative, and there's a bit of soapboxing going on where I suspect the tribunal would prefer a matter of fact answer. She's also facing a much more sensible barrister than, say, Jane Russell...

That said, anyone who has the courage to wear a white suit to a tribunal has my undying respect, if it were me it would have had coffee stains before I even sat down. 🤣

Edited for silly autocarroting.

I am observing and her demeanor is not combative. She's not 'fighting back' at SC, she's calmly resisting any attempt at railroading. She is polite but firm. Her voice is calm and moderate. A rock of terfiness.

I have no worries about the impression she is making on the panel.

TT's 2nd Morning tweets

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1981307633165275646.html

Excellent, thanks

Hope you're right, Critical!

What did the poster say, please? I missed that bit yestetdau.

Just to add, the eye-rolling was more of a fleeting expression that betrayed her feelings than an Upton-esque performative flounce. 😁

Does it matter if the man called Rose is or isn't there?
It's known he's a man expecting to use women's facilities and is not happy about the women objecting. Either way, he'll say he's right and they're wrong.

If only his manager had kindness training to explain to him that sex change isn't possible and he retains his rights to male facilities.