"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

@YouCantProveIt Yes RH is really undermining the other transwomen by not even attempting to appear to be feminine.

Even so, the wording in the EA says they have protection if they are thinking about transition so there are no requirements to change your presentation.

Which in reality is someone claiming that they're thinking about transition. Not particularly rigorous is it?

Plenty of the TRA crew will, and it just makes them look even more unreasonable and mad.

This case is not as legally slam dunk as Peggies.

The Trust did follow process (we say delayed and too little too late), they said they would look into a different resolution, they didn't find against the nurses.

RH was probably ok to raise a grievance given the letter and collective feeling against him. While they say they feel harassed in some cases the letters had standard boilerplate wording.

Legally not as targetted and abusive as the 'process' Fife went through.

That being said they have the best evidence of a manly man parading his non-hormone impacted penis up and down the changing rooms in boxers with holes. Even in gender ideology land no one can say thats ok.

From TT

Resuming.
J- Mrs N with her experience of the Union, Mr Nichols is that who you mean?
LL - yes
J - RH was also using?
LL - yes
J - you were aware of that?
LL - think it was when we got the letter about RH complaint that he was representing him

It helps to demonstrate (again) and hopefully the judge is clocking this, that once you start to unpick it, there is no way to separate these men into groups. There can be no difference in treatment between man a with full surgery, man b who has a piece of paper at home, man c who decided on Tuesday and man d who's plain having a go. If it's any man it's all men.

And the issue is that the focus still stays all about the men, not about the women who don't care which man it is. They don't want him there and don't consent to being used by him. And it's the women's space, with the job of providing a resource accessible and useable to all women; it's not a stage for men's gender identities.

From TT

J - it's not unusual for union members to not see eye to eye. Or for same union to rep both C and R in a complaint. DId you go and see if any other reps?
LL - no, just thought I'd liaise with legal team instead
J - in your evidence you set up a union - unusual, dramatic
LL - yes
LL - so we could support each other, just left it
J - meeting with TA, your expectations you say safeguarding concern, explain
LL - think his behaviour was a risk to the women using the CR.
J - RH behaviour, what do you mean?
LL - the keen gaze
J - where from this phrase

From TT

J - Keen gaze
LL - knowing about Karens situation and other women who had expressed, how he'd been behaving, looking at people, was on phone, could have been recording us
J - so safeguarding for others or yourself
LL - every woman using the CR.
J - any reexamin?

NF - yes, pg 59, describe RH encounter Jan 24, maybe SC can head me off but during his qu he said the concern you are raising is that RH was there longer than necessary - is that this encounter, only issue?
LL - maybe I was in a rush but he's v masc, not comfortable, felt I was

All of the claimants so far have been excellent in their consistent use of masculine pronouns for RH.

So does that mean there's now one claimant left to give evidence, Ms J Bradbury?

From TT

LL - waiting for him to leave. felt like forever
NF - that first encounter?
LL - yes
NF - coughing
J - it's spreading, no comfort but I'm on the mend.
NF - yes. Then you describe moving to cubicle why
LL - didnt wantt o change in front of him
NF - when you came out he was walking
NF - around near the showers, we can see on the plans, which part are you talking about where RH walking?
LL - near Joannes locker, along to the left, just outside cubicles
NF - thank you judge.
J - that concludes your evidence, what happens now.
SC? - we got ahead of ourselves

They've run out of witnesses for the rest of the day!

Professor Phoenix!

Prof Phoenix 😍

Fabulous Jo Phoenix is the SSS expert.

Yesss!

That's an excellent choice of witness!

Expert Witness

Ooh I had an idea she might be and was right!

From TT

SC - have taken more abbreviated approach and have got ahead Ms Cootes and Shields scheduled for tomorrow morning. Can bring forward a day. Will redo schedule and send over. Not sure if Prof Phoenix is fixed for 10th, but as we are going to wards short.
NF - can ask the question
NF - of JPH (prof phoenix) if there is flexibility
J - reluctant to have a gap between witnesses and JPH
NF - could consider a remote link if that means possible.
J - JPH in london?
NF - don't know
Cross talk
NF - coots and shields should both be short
J - prob work to be done

I’ve never heard of an ET running a day early.

They really have honed in on the issues.

From TT

J - anyway, list of issues and timings and then I think you were goingt o look at Whatsapp
SC - that's been resolved
J - so are we calling it a day today, regrettable but necessary?
NF - yes, more prep we do shorter we will be. haven't discussed closing but could get on with
NF - those if we need to wait for JPH?
J - yes. I guess we will break then and we will see everyone tomorrow morning.

ENDS

TT Tweets 2nd from this morning.

Tribunal ended early today, resume tomorrow at 10am

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1982772045030257018.html

I'm glad the last witness mentioned the possibility of being recorded in the CR, I don't think any of the others mentioned it so far.

I'm glad Jo Phoenix's name is out there. It was killing me to know and not say.