"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 2

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Link to Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, evidence from KD (Day 1) and BH (Day 2).

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. 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 and at Christian Concern who are supporting the nurses via the CLC.

The hearing started on October 20th, with evidence starting on October 22nd and is scheduled to last 3 weeks. To view the hearing online, requests for access had to be made by October 17th. The hearing is being live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets who have background to this case on their substack. An alternative to X is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

The Judge made clear at the start of the public hearing on Day 1 that only TT or press have permission to tweet. If online observers see/hear something in the court that isn’t reported by TT, we don’t mention it until the next time there’s a break. This is a very cautious approach to avoid any accusations of “live reporting” on MN. Commentary on the content of TT tweets is fine as soon as they’re posted on X.

Key people:
C/Ns - Claimants, the Darlington nurses
R/T/Trust - Respondent, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
J/EJ – Judge/Employment Judge
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for claimants
SC - Simon Cheetham, KC, barrister for respondents
RH - Rose Henderson, trans identifying nurse
CG – Clare Gregory, ward manager
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, second claimant to give evidence
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany

Other abbreviations:
WFTCHTJ – Waiting For The Conference Host To Join
ET - Employment Tribunal
DMH/H – Hospital, Darlington Memorial Hospital
CR/CF - changing room or facilities
IX - internal investigation
XX – cross examination

You wouldn't undress then wander over the laundry basket, you would get dressed first.

We Are dealing with harassment under the Equality Act here, not the criminal offence. Not repetitive exposure is needed. Indeed,no exposure at all is needed - the potential for it is sufficient:

1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

A here is the employer.

TT

SC -but that was not what Rose what doing
CH no he was just walking up and down
SC - [questions what this looks like]
CH - you're rummaging to look for right size

Some discussion about scrubs logistics
SC - but you pick scrubs up on way in and you take a left. Are you saying every time RH was strolling up and down between Joanne and Rose?
CH yes but I've always got my face in phone, I go straight to my locker.

I've got a memory of reading somewhere that in her prison reforming Elizabeth Fry wasn't only concerned with male predators but also with the fear women have of it.
Is that correct?
And if so, what the hell? etc

😂

Some of CH's plain speaking cuts right through the clever point SC is trying to make. Case in point, the holes discussion that I'm shaking with mirth over.

TT

SC - so how can you notice so many things
CH - I put my phone down when I get to my locker and I can see him then
SC - every time
CH not every time

SC putting aside your objection to RH being there at all no objection to RH being by RH locker
CH - no reason to be in there no need to sit about, just go in, change and out again, no need to be sat about.
SC - tight boxer shorts with holes? Tatty or gaping?

CH - I didn't stare long enough to observe size
SC - large holes?
Ch - They were just holes SC -and every time they had holes in
CH yes every time, in holey boxer shorts every time walking up and down

Thank you. That's just made me confused why they're trying to do a home run with the frequency of these events though, when it's quite obvious that he shouldn't have been in there at all.

and can I add

And I think the potential is a significant part of the harassment here - it's the knowledge that he could wonder around in his boxers in the women's changing room and there wasn't a thing the nurses could do about it - that if they tried to complain they would be punished.

Talk about belabouring a point!

TT

SC - p72 'never hang about' how long in there?
CH not long at all if I was getting changed to go home less than 2 minutes
J clarify? whether RH in there or not
CH just go straight in and out

CH going out for a cig have to be quick too
SC if you are going straight in and out, not there for long isnt' it diff for you to suggest RH is there for extended periods
CH - no reason to be in there playing on his phone. No woman does that.

SC - really it's the fact that RH being there using a phone sat there that's what concerns you?
CH - just his presence
SC - i understand that

Your objection is that he’s using a phone in the CR?

Mr Cheetham, really??

TT

SC - para 10 'one time I accidentally made eye contact....grab things and go' So from that time, were you even quicker
CH yes
SC you rushed away
SC para 12 4 lines down 'get belonging and go to toilet or wait'
CH wouldn't get changed in front of him.

CH I've gone to toilet but that's not hygienic, or wait, but not always time to wait. SC RH just stood there and stared?
CH - stood looking and that's the anxiety, he's stood there
SC he was just staring? Every time?
CH not every time, sometimes on phone

I imagine the point of Mr H’s evidence is to establish that she expressed shock and dismay at the time of the encounter, that she reported at the time what she now says Rose said. Ie it hasn’t been cooked up by her and the other women/isnt “an embellishment”.

As someone who has been the victim to a TiM with a phone in women's spaces this makes me want to teleport in front of SC and give him a good old fashioned slap to knock some sense into him.

SC - really it's the fact that RH being there using a phone sat there that's what concerns you?

🤯

TT

SC - one occasion he stared at you? How do you know he was staring at you
CH I turned and he was starting at me, it was a mixture of emotions, I panicked. I was at my locker getting my stuff out and he was stood there

SC - quite plainly you had a concern a strong concern about RH being present do you agree
CH yes
SC - your concern was about the maleness? how Rose looked we can see you saw RH in CR on a number of occasions
CH yes

I wonder if they are focusing on scale of compensation knowing they will lose.

‘You’ve made it up’

’I’m not lying’

’I’m not saying you’re lying’

What else can I it be??

Watching the side eye and facial expressions from AH is premium viewing.

I can almost feel the rage in him about the outrageous behaviour in the first place and now the re-victimisation of these brave women by the Tribunal.

SC - now calling her a liar.

If it was Mr B I think he'd have taken some action by now.....

SC - I'm not calling you a liar......but you are you pillock

SC manoeuvred CH into saying that the problem she had with RH was because she perceived him as masculine.

From there, SC can advance the argument goes it would be unfair to exclude those transwomen who are unfortunate enough not to be feminine. And in fact arbitrary.

I know SC has to ask these questions, but men just don't get it do they.

I’m struggling to listen to this. She sounds so upset. There was no good reason for a man to be in the changing room.

Tatty or gaping? JFC.