"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.

I didn't know it was flawed. Can anyone expand on that?

This is “Darlington Rose”:

Apologies for ambiguity. I just meant it was possible that other legal advice was that case was flawed and unlikely to succeed.

So that's what I mean about maybe something will come out in the tribunal that we aren't aware of.

Christian Legal Centre is a campaigning group, it doesn't necessarily care if it wins the case as it is prompting evangelical Christianity causes.

The thought of the case failing is awful. Surely they must succeed as the NHS trust has behaved illegally.

I would hope the Darlington nurses legal counsel will use the arguments from previous cases (such as the ones Naomi Cunningham has made so well).

"Christian Legal Centre is a campaigning group, it doesn't necessarily care if it wins the case as it is prompting evangelical Christianity causes."

Evangelical Christianity is not a single hive mind, so I don't think this is as simple as CLC make a judgement as to whether a case fits "evangelical Christian causes".

I certainly don't rule out the possibility that they have strategic aims that fit their particular part of evangelical circles. I do think that they want to win the cases they take on – from their perspective, these are injustices which must be challenged. And in the case of the Darlington nurses it seems obvious that they are right to see an injustice that must be challenged. I just hope they do a good job.

I am a little worried about the representation, having previously only come across the CLC in the Archie Battersbee case re turning off life support, and other similar cases. But I think at least one of the nurses is a Christian, so maybe it was just an obvious organisation to approach for help. The nurses might not have known initially that crowd funding was even a possibility. After all, Sandie Peggie only got linked up with Sex Matters and her funding source because the MP she turned to for help happened to be Neale Hanvey, who is very knowledgeable and connected in this area. But I really wish it was going to be Naomi cross examining ‘Rose’!

Hmm. Sometimes, the images/photos are as important as the content of the court case. And the basic 'set up' is often what most people remember - this is one man, who looks very manly, insisting on using the women's changing room. He's a straight man, married, who's had no surgery.

On the other side we have a group of several nurses, at least one of whom has a background of abuse and who was traumatised by this man.

TBH I don't know if it matters all that much who the solicitor is. The news headlines and stories are going to be very interesting.

I don't think Sex Matters funds cases, does it?

I thought Sunday was talking about SM being an intervenor for the Claimants. Maybe?

Which means he doesn't have a GRC, which means he is legally a man and had no right to be in the women's changing room, let alone the clarification from the SC.

The news headlines for the more liberal media will probably concentrate on the fact its the CLC representing the nurses, anything to undermine the case.

I would very much hope htat the CLC team
who it must be remembered
took this case on some time ago
have been listening and watching other cases carefully.

If they do plagiarise Naomi with Bananarama and Pete
she will not mind
and it will highlight the universality of men invaings female spaces
and the illegality of the NHS defending this case

Why do you say that the description means he doesn't have a GRC? You don't need to have had surgery to get a GRC, and from the recent case of the 21-year old woman getting a GRC you also can be planning on parenthood and still get one. In fact that case makes me wonder why they bother listing any criteria at all, they could just hand them out like weekly prizes for turning up.

The liberal media have their agenda and it's so engrained that I'm not convinced it's them we need to reach. It's the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Express and the Star because they're the ones who can make this into an issue that needs to be considered when people want women's votes.

No it doesn't afaik but it did seem to have some involvement i.e. correct me if I'm wrong they linked Sandie Peggie with whoever mystery backer they have. Evidently we don't and won't know who they approached for initial legal advice and what that was.

@ArabellaSaurus in terms of media and support, it does matter as it brings the impression cases are being "brought" by the far right etc general groups that opposed LGBT as a whole which is a major (untrue) criticism of gender critical movements.

But I think at least one of the nurses is a Christian, so maybe it was just an obvious organisation to approach for help. Many British Christians would rather self represent than approach CLC for "help" as we don't share their values and political views.

I understand they might be desperate and take what help is on offer; on the other hand post the SC judgement I do wonder about the necessity of continuing such a case. Many NHS groups are slowly moving towards single sex spaces, and it costs the NHS fortune to defend it.

The nurses turned to CLC because their union hung them out to dry

see also Sandie Peggie suing RCN

Sex matters are not a legal service/firm or union. They are a woman's rights organisation and as such cant take the case on nor do they have standing to start an employment tribunal on behalf of the nurses

Maya gave evidence in Sandie's tribunal and Sex Matters intervened in the Supreme Court case.

I do wonder about the necessity of continuing such a case

Well, afaik no NHS trust has conceded, held their hands up and said sorry, we got that wrong and committed to following the law as described by the SC. So yes, sadly, every necessity of proceeding with the case firstly to get redress for the nurses for their poor treatment by their employer and secondly to keep up the pressure on the NHS to follow the fucking law.

The NHS can stop these cases today. They can apologise. They can obey the law. They can look at women and not see validation toys for men who want to be women. If people want to be validation toys for men who want to be women then that's their choice. They don't have the right to choose for anyone else, and I can't think of any other law where 'moving slowly towards compliance' would be considered acceptable.

One reason I'm interested in how the CLC perform in this, is because if they are successful it will set a social precedent that all women can uphold their rights even if they can't afford the likes of Naomi Cunningham.

When all of our wins are bound in very few, very talented, barristers there is a natural scarcity of justice - but if it can be shown that the law is settled enough that any second-rate law firm can win, then it opens up justice to more.

I can't think of any other law where 'moving slowly towards compliance' would be considered acceptable.

Exactly. How much longer are the nurses expected to patiently change in a cupboard while their employer thinks about maybe considering starting to move towards following the law at some undetermined future point?

They brought the case because they were suffering a detriment at work. Until that detriment is removed - permanently - they have every reason to continue.

Has it actually been confirmed that Pavel Stroilov is acting as counsel ?

He isn't. He has qualified as a solicitor in recent years and is acting in that capacity in this case.