"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

I am just following here and on TT, and ianal.

I assume what he's doing is going through each of the items that the nurses has listed as examples of discrimination or harrassmemt. The main one is that R H was there at all. Others are different behaviours / things which rose did in the changing room which they have itemised separately. So although he isn't able to deny the main one, he is trying to bat away each of the others by showing it didn't happen, or it only happened to one nurse, or it happened but wasn't in itself harrassment. He is hoping that by the end only the main one (the permission for rose to be there) remains standing.

Perhaps the questions about whether they would be ok with a 'fully transitioned' tw in the cr will lead to an argument that the policy was misapplied in this case, but could have been ok and not an act of harrassmemt if RH had been less masc. Perhaps they are trying to lose only on discrimination, and not harrassment too?

From TT

J -we are finished for the day in terms of evidence. So legal reps only now?
It's case management now. For rest of those in room we will break, resume 10am Monday.

[End of session]

From TT

We we continue on Monday.

Summary of second session afternoon 24 October:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1981727856397828234.html

In theory damages are unlimited in discrimination claims, so they won't want to lose on that basis.

As I understand things@ManderleyagainSC is undermining those claims and those parts of the claims he can. In essence those are how County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust handled the complaint from the nurses and the counter-complaint from RH.

The substance of the complaint, that the Trust permitted RH into the women's changing room, is going to be tested when counsel for the claimant cross-examines the respondent's witnesses next week.

So far it's been the "case for the defence" and that will continue for a few days more. Then it'll be the "case for the prosecution" which will be more engaging for us.

This judge and defence lawyer keep pissing me off with their ignorance and it doesn't convince me this will be successful.

Meanwhile, DH is disappointed Pete hasn't made an appearance.

I know SC has a job to do but it makes my blood boil the way these women are having to explain and justify their fear.

He's a half naked man in the women's changing room

Bangs gavel, everybody goes home.

Simples.

Blame that on the NHS for not doing anything about it, being pretty horrible to staff, and then mounting a defence. Fucking arseholes of the first order.

Waving from the bunker here, and in awe of the reporting and analyses.

Could I ask if the threat of cancellation of surgery emerged during the hearings so far? Maybe the nurse who was threatened with that was not a witness. Thank you.

Overall I think the Trust is aiming for:
following the Supreme Court judgment, although RH shouldn't have been in the women's changing room, the Trust was just doing the same as everyone else and complying with NHS policy;
the Trust followed all of its own processes correctly; and
there was no harassment in relation to the various claims because the communications with the nurses simply followed processes and the stress and anxiety caused to the nurses was as a result of them over-reacting because they perceived RH to present in a masculine way but of course there was nothing he could have done about that.

We have a real life version in RH, so no need

As far as I'm aware it was referred to obliquely once.

I think she was the first nurse to give evidence yesterday and I don’t think that was raised.

3 men, 2 women.

Opinion written by chief judge and one of the women.

Already thinking this will go to appeal and need someone like Naomi to put a fire under the bums of these complacent men.

It's incoherent nonsense even to a layman reading the tweets.

If it's fine for a man to change with women why are there male and female changing rooms provided at all?

If it's not safe for RH to change with men, (safe obviously meaning mostly emotionally, dignity wise, it doesn't seem likely that they think all their male staff will immediately assault him) then why is it safe for women to change with RH?

The obvious bleeding issue is that RH wishes to be an exception to the normal boundaries for his own reasons, and a bunch of misogynists feel that women have a binary sex based duty to be used by men with Needs, and shouldn't be allowed to say no.

Naomi would have this lot on toast for breakfast.

Edited to add: the extremely silly woman who is delighted to get her kit off with men and 'doesn't mind' can go and have a lovely time with RH in a gender neutral changing room. Consent is a word she might want an introduction to.

Even more, it's a bananarama attack - it ain't (only) what he says, it's the way that he says it.

In my opinion, acting like a bully in court looks particularly bad when dealing with witnesses whom the trust tried to bully into accepting a man into their changing room.

It's beyond grinding that women have to go into court rooms again and again and again and again and re explain to men the same bloody stuff. Repeatedly. This concept that they're equal humans to men and that men using them isn't ok.

And deal with those men being baffled and not getting it.

I’m assuming it’s in her statement. If it is, and if they are denying it, SC would have raised it. Legal arguments about it later, maybe

Just reading through today's TT and seems like case is going well.

Two (?) nurses have now testified that Rose's behaviour in the CR was sexual harassment.

Some bonkers manager told them she had no problem changing in front of men (!)

According to reporting the claimant involved was Karen Danson:

"But worse was to come for Karen. By, as she says, ‘an unhappy coincidence’, she was due to have a gynaecological operation at Darlington Memorial Hospital in August 2024.
To her horror, she discovered that Rose was scheduled to be involved.
The procedure would be part robotic, and Rose’s role would involve being at the bedside, passing tools to the surgeon.
“It is difficult to put into words how I felt,” Karen said, “I immediately knew this was ethically wrong and that my condition would be made worse and more painful with the stress it would cause.”
With a colleague, Karen approached the theatre manager and explained the situation, the legal case and how Rose’s involvement would be “completely inappropriate”, and that she wanted women involved in the operation.
Astonishingly the theatre manager said: “But Rose is a woman”.
She added that she thought Karen was being “prejudiced”.
She tried to explain that she was not singling Rose out, but that there was clearly a conflict of interest and because of her childhood trauma she wanted women involved in the procedure.
Regarding Rose being removed from the operating team, Karen was asked: “How do you think that would make Rose feel?”
She was given the choice of cancelling her surgery, trying to get it done at another hospital, or allowing Rose to be part of the operation. Any delays would prolong the pain she was in and had been for some time.
After putting her position in writing, the theatre manager wrote to her and said that her request could not be accommodated “due to clinical and staffing skill mix issues.”
With legal support and advice from the Christian Legal Centre, days before the operation, Karen went to the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service (PALS).
After outlining her situation, PALS swiftly made the decision that it was not appropriate for Rose to be involved."

The question is, will the "theatre manager" be one of the witnesses for the respondent?

@nauticant thanks that is a shocking account and i fail to see how the defence could rebut that one.

I noticed at the end of the day the judge closed the hearing to discuss “witness orders”.

the only thing that I think this could mean is that they are going to issue orders, for witnesses who submitted statements to appear before the court, which i know they can do, and wonder who that might be.

I wonder whether this part of the story will be part of the ET because although it is partly to do with KD's employment to a significant degree it's about the hospital-patient relationship.

This is the part that makes me so bloody angry. As I mentioned upthread, this is absolutely a deliberately vinductive move to punish Karen, who dared to speak out.

How fucking dare they.

I agree with this entirely. If it shouldn’t be a problem for a man to be in the women’s CR, changing with women, then it shouldn’t be a problem for womanly Rose to be in with the men. Either men can be trusted around women/“women” or they can’t. The Trust is trying to have it both ways.

One of the most outrageous things I have ever witnessed in my life is women being forced, in tribunal after tribunal, to recount the trauma of their sexual assaults simply to defend or maintain what are surely some of the most basic of human rights.