"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

Ok - we're on a break - and TT has mentioned both these points

In respect to whether she had direct knowledge that Rose was attempting to inseminate his female partner. She said it is relevant because:

"There was a sexually active biological man standing next to me while I was pulling my trousers down."

She also made the point (and to be fair the barrister and the judge did check her on it) that they were ignored for months and at least six weeks between HR and the meeting with the larger cohort of nurses

But they were ignored for 6 weeks before a meeting was taken place and they were told someone would look into it. She made the point that when Rose raise a complaint they all had formal letters asking them to come to meetings as part of their resolution procedure within 2 weeks.

So nurses raised concerns about their safety - on a daily basis they were being harrassed - months later, or at its shortest timeline 6 weeks - they didn;t get a resolution.

Rose raises a concern - two weeks later official letters saying that disciplinary action could be a consequence are issued.

The lawyers are trying to minismise it but made clear the discrepancy in treatment.

Always bias in favour of men.

I think there was a strong indication from SC this morning that RH will be giving evidence. He didn't fudge it with 'this is what he says in his WS'. Given SC's very specific questions to Mrs Hoy about the size of the holes in RH's boxers I fear we may be treated to more than we would like to know about the state of RH's underwear.

The risk imposed by RH’s presence was that it removed the women’s ability to enforce a boundary and thereby protect themselves from harassment and abuse in a situation where they were vulnerable.

The risk imposed by RH’s presence was that it removed the women’s ability to enforce a boundary and thereby protect themselves from harassment and abuse in a situation where they were vulnerable.

I hope to god he doesn’t produce them in the courtroom.

His poor wife.

I find it interesting when people say that people like RH couldn't possibly use the men's because "it wouldn't be safe". The implication, if true, is that there are NHS employees who would harass and bully someone for being gender non-conforming. If that's the case, then surely this is the behaviour NHS management should be addressing?

TT 3rd morning session
J - discusses diagram bundle 2, 2083, ward/dept layout. what you were saying was you saw RH come through double doors walk down and turn (ortho office) then the theatres, then would walk to doors and back for no reason.

J it's not easy to read
CH no it's blurry.
J theatres? [there is discussion about location of double doors.]
CH can't see it, too small

J can you show Mrs Newy where you are pointing, then show SC and (NF? missed) It's the double doors to end of corridor and above 14b 180? Right, OK. [agreement]
When you were saying RH would walk down, down where?
CH from the doors all the way down to other doors and then walk back [shows Mrs Newy)

J - so the double doors on the left corridor going down, between room 14b035 [more on the location of doors etc]

J so just again taking it stage by stage, so you say you saw RH walking down doors top right, down a corridor through ward 14, turn left to other doors, turn back and go through same double doors
CH yes

J - where is your territory in relation to where we are looking at?
CH we work between wards and surg admissions round.
J Where is ?CO? couldn't catch that.
CH you can come out of double doors there, and you can come that way
J where are they in relation to CR?

CH the F CR? more or less next to each other
J [clarifies location] J

• siderooms do you know where they are? CH think they are stairs on ward [again more on locations] hard to follow as I don't have map

I wonder if it's an important point as to whether RH identifies as "a woman" (the people that are either sex but have a special inner feeling, which is the thing that differentiates women from men) - or as "female" and therefore how the body appears is at least somewhat related to his status?

I had assumed he was a full-on self-IDer (ie the first category) in which case all the talk of looking female or feminine or "fully transitioned" would have been completely at odds with the belief that women aren't female. But perhaps it is the second?

I only caught the cross, not the exam in chief - did she make the point in her chief that it didn't matter whether he was sexually active or not, the problem is HE'S A MAN, the sexually active element just makes it even worse?

So many red herrings being thrown about here. I guess that's all they've got.

If RH is allowed, why not Pete the plumber

Would it have happened without the case? No.

TT: Briefly lost connection. Picking up.
SC - where would you see RH walking around?
CH - pointing to where the hallway is, describing process of moving patients. SC - finished.
J - Mr F?
NF - thank you, winding back, could Mr H pass you bundle 1?

NF - page 117, going back to list of issues, and need the witness bundle as well, page 72
CH - yes
NF - a point of clarification, you were asked about 3 issues, 1st RH staring at women getting changed, 2nd RH staring at you, quoting from CH WS, that was one instance of RH staring

at you,
CH - I was to the side, he couldn't see my breasts
NF - I want ask you about his usual pattern of being in the room, is that just one instance
CH - no his usual way
NF - now back to the plan, pg 2083,

NF - please keep the bundle open, what you say in your WS in para 28, 'during that time I saw him walking up and down the ward doing nothing', why did you think that
CH - because you see people on the ward they are doing something, going to fetch something, he was walking up and

down,
NF - now a picture, depicts the length of the longer of the 2 ward corridors, show us on the plan which you mean
CH - [pointing to the corridor on the plan]
NF - thank CH, J - nothing further.
J - that concludes your evidence, you can return to your seat.

It wasn't made as a standalone statement but emerged during cross-examination:

SC you say it was uncomfortable but what was the risk
CH a man in the CR
SC would it make a difference if fully transitioned
CH I honestly don't know

Hopefully he has more than one pair…

[AH no longer needed to assist with bundle, removes self and chair]
J - Miss Peveller next (JP)
J - walks JP through formalities, are you swearing or affirming
JP - I said I would swear by the Bible
J - its a personal preference
JP - swears

NF - takes JP to witness statement, one point of correction you want to make, first meeting with RH,
JP - It was either Oct 2020 or March 2021, I was off sick in between
J - what is correction
JP - I met first either 10/2020 or 3/2021
NF - no other corrections,
JP - no

NF - takes JP to plan and confirm location of locker on plan
JP - confirms
NF - is this the statement you prepared for RP (resolution procedure).
JP - yes NF - a point of clarification on your witness statement, I don't understand what para 7 means, 3rd line, talking about

NF - when encountering RH in changing room 'I was about to take my scrubs down' what does that mean, I know it's a bit embarassing
JP - I was about to take them off, down to my underwear.
NF - nothing more from me,
SC questions now
SC - you are a staff nurse, band 5, since 1997

SC - during the this time you were working part time
JP - yes
SC - you've just clarified the time RH came to the ward to pick up patients, just first noticed, did you question he had a need to be on the ward
JP - he was a student at the time, wore a yellow hat with his mentor

SC - you say only saw RH once in the CR because you had different start and end times, the one time you were in the CR with RH was Oct 2024, prior to that did you know which was RH's locker
JP - no
JP - asks to hear q again,
SC - RH locker about a meter, prior to the incident

in Oct 2024 did you know RH had a locker near yours, how did you know
JP - name was on it
SC - RH?
JP - no said Rosalie
SC - when did you realise it was RH's locker,
JP - people were talking about it in our break room, realised that Rose must be Rosalie,
SC - when was that

JP - Dec 2023, into 2024
SC - you say around the same time as signing the letter, encountered RH in the CR, was it before or after signing the letter
JP - after
SC - you saw encountered RH, walked in, you were about to change, made you uncomfortable, what did RH do?

JP - he got changed, but I did not look at him, I looked down, it felt like a long time.
SC - you never saw RH behaving in any way inappropriate
JP - not in that CR, but it made me feel very anxious that a man came in just as I was about to change

I'm not at all happy with the judge asking CH to formulate exactly what the third space for RH should be. It should simply be somewhere away from the women's single-sex space.

Rose is Pete.

This is why this case is so different to the Peggie trial.

Upton fawned and wore a bra. So he was in the eyes of the TWAW crew - he was a laydee...... so Naomi draw the paralell saying how is Upton different to Pete.

Rose is a hard sell - he is Pete. A manly man in his boxers. So the questions are saying - if Rose pretended to be more ladylike - would that be ok? And some of the witnesses seem to say they wouldn't have minded as much. However legally that is absolutely irrelevant.

However they miss the entire point - trans identifying men are biological men so they are all men.

No one, judge included, can seriously believe that you can work through all the women users of a women's changing room working out to what degree of transition they individually feel able to take their clothes off for each individual man.

Gender neutral changing rooms. The women who consent to play 'look at me, I believe you're a woman to the point I'll bare my body for you' can go in there and the women who don't consent can get on with life unharassed and undisturbed by male demands.

And women bloody well have to be entitled to say no, I am not undressing for him.

When we get to a break, could oneof the observers flesh this out? I don't follow the point from the TT summary.

This afternoon will be Ms M A Grundy. J wants to get Ms T A Hooper in as well but NF was pushing back at that.

Back at 2pm.

Precisely. Why is this her problem to solve for him?

All this is framing a foundation that women owe men this labour. Of pretending and undressing, and finding compromise for him if they're unwilling to perform.

So this relates to the defence

The NHS Trust only issued standard letters. They were unreasonable to feel harrassed but a disclaimer saying that they may be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

He then said no proceedings have taken place against you.
She then said not yet, he said its been a very long time.
She said basically lets wait and see what they do when the court case closes. I.e. we're protected as long as we have publicity but we are not yet safe

The questions about the shape of the changing room etc too. I did a law degree and have worked with lawyers most of my career, I know why they do this. But it’s a really visceral reaction I’m having to the implication of all these men asking questions of women that seem designed to minimise these issues. It’s insulting. Even if it is logical.

Hello everyone!

Thank you for pasting this morning. I have had internet issues - we had Virgin Media round to try and sort it out this morning.

Though I am at home, I am not feeling as well as I did in hospital - probably because I was trying to keep it together in hospital and I'm now relaxing.

I will start pasting again at 2pm when they are back from the lunch break. Hopefully I will continue all afternoon. Then I have a meeting at 4pm.