"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

the SC has ruled that a GRC does entitle anyone to use opposite sex spaces.

Critical typo here - does NOT entitle!

Like NC states over and over again the Croft case which precedes the GRA is a dead letter so it is not an argument to say at some point, where they look more like a woman have had surgery bla bla bla is not a relevant argument.

The SC ruling arrives and it is simples…..men remain men, and can not be in designated SSS end of.

oops yes - and also, while I'm at it, 'farcical', not facial.

Oh dear.

Well at least it's not me arguing a case in court.

He had put in a written statement and just confirmed he stood by it.

At a guess he bore witness to the emotional impact on his wife, same as Sandies case. The defence would look foolish to dig up his facebook posts or whatever else, it did not work well for the rabid JR.

There's an odd (and concerning), reverse-Pete implication in today's questioning, which basically was that: yes Rose is obviously a man, but let's say he was in all respect 'woman like' should he still be denied entrance?

Why would that be relevant?

The point really should be that all males should be excluded, because otherwise there will be some individuals (like Rose) who are indistinguishable from just any old man off the street. If that means that some unicorn like 100% facsimiles of a woman (and we know these in reality don't exist) are excluded that is a necessary requirement of carrying out the law.

Was I misunderstanding something in the Tweets or what was attempted to be established in the questioning?

The Croft case was referenced in the Supreme Court judgement.

No woman asks another woman at work when she is going to start getting undressed
if they do its harrassment
simple

Is it about whether/to what extent trauma is caused? I can't see any issues in this case so far apart from level of damages. They are not trying to say RH was entitled to be there. But, as with Kelly v Leonardo, it's a matter of what follows from that. If a Dr Evadne Hinge -type came in while you were changing, would that be sexual harassment as it would be with Pete? If this tribunal thinks it's no big deal in terms of damages, then that's a green light for all the people who think they can ignore FWS.

I don’t think it has been mentioned, but isn’t it traumatic enough to enter a secure changing room knowing that there is a risk of finding a bloke in there in his underpants and/or worrying that a bloke will enter whilst you are in a state of undress.

And don’t get me started with the substitute room that has no double door.

Not in this context, only in relation to which are the correct comparators for cases of discrimination.

Where gender reassignment is the protected characteristic, in the case of a male person proposing to or undergoing gender reassignment to the opposite sex, the correct comparator is likely to be a man without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and similarly for a woman (although there may be situations where the comparator’s sex is immaterial to the comparison). See for example, Croft v Royal Mail Group plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1045, [2003] ICR 1425 at para 74.

I got that impression too - I think they are trying to minimise the impact of Rose's lack of transition by arguing that it didn't matter whether he had or hadn't made any effort because the nurse's reaction would be the same.

J: We are going to have an expert witness tell us why safe spaces are important, dignity and privacy. Main concern - correct me if wrong - was maleness?
BH: Yes - poses a threat to women I would say.
J: So where is the risk if RH fully transitioned?

It’s a bit worrying that the judge seems predisposed to thinking that transitioning somehow removes maleness. And his implication here seems to be that the only issue with maleness in female spaces is that the maleness would help a man in assaulting a women. I wish BH had also brought up the issue that transitioning does not turn a male into a female. That the risk from men is also regarding voyerism, not just physical assault. And that single sex changing rooms are necessary for dignity, not just safety.

Hopefully the expert they are bringing in will make some of this clear.

And that worries me.

I wish BH had also brought up the issue that transitioning does not turn a male into a female. That the risk from men is also regarding voyerism, not just physical assault.

She did. She expressly said voyeurism was a risk, how could she tell what was in a man's head.

You’re right. She did. I think I was just so incensed at the judge’s phrasing I skimmed her actual response and ranted at him in my head.

I think you forgot 'not' in your final bullet point.

A couple of things.

SC said today that Rose will give evidence. I'm thinking that will be an eye opener for the judge. But the 'fully transitioned' nonsense nearly made my head explode. This is where you need Naomi Cunningham or Anya Palmer.

And the expert on single sex spaces is definitely an expert. I would tune in for that.

Apologies again for the tweeting issues in the morning. Hopefully no repetition tomorrow.

@Justabaker - pps upthread said that SC then corrected himself from Rose will say to Rose's statement will say which is why there is discussion on whether or not he will appear. I really hope he does.

Thank you so much to you and all the TT team on your sterling work this and other weeks.

Thanks and most grateful for all your gangs efforts, no apologies required.

As a <sniggers> aside i would like to bet that Rose will have made every effort to look womanly, which will not help.

Do we know who the expert is at this point?

I had the same reaction when I heard the judge ask what's the risk?! I'm sure he knew the answer but it made my hackles rise. It doesn't help that he's off camera so there are no clues to be had from facial expression or body language.

The insane thing is that because the hospital trust won’t implement a single sex policy they have all these capable nurses off sick for months on end plus a toxic work environment. Added to the cost of these court proceedings it must cost the taxpayer a small fortune all because nobody is prepared to say “no” to this very ordinary man.

Agree. This is where you need Naomi or Anya or Ben to put it clearly and plainly.

The judge seems to be looking at when reasonably a woman might be permitted privacy, dignity and freedom from men as the starting point.

Thank you for taking over the pasting. I arrived home at 5.30pm and I'm now trying not to fall asleep.

I have various regular appointments over the next few weeks as a result of my hospital stay. I can't paste till 11.30am on Friday mornings, so I would be grateful if someone could do that tomorrow morning. I also have an unrelated appointment at 4pm tomorrow.

Thanks again!