"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 3

[AuthorisedCat]

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

Link to Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5432103-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-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 like the way NF has broken down the issue.

✨AT - I think it's a fair qu✨ !
🌟NF - do you have an answer?🌟

“I am sure 2025 will bring more challenges to us and that we will face them as a team”

Well he got part of that right, 🤗 shame he’s sitting there all on his lonesome without a phalanx of acolytes to mop his brow and peel his grapes.

NF - doyou have an answer?
AT - I don't
NF - policy issue doesn't need an ix, it's yes or no, right and lawful? Should we be allowing RH in the F CR
AT - yes, at the time my understanding was policy was in line with guidance.
NF - this letter says the policy is wrong and harmful

AT- yes
NF - letter even cites page 80, the policy in bold, about concerns might be raised about sharing with trans employees - please read, let me know when done
AT - yes
NF - should be resolved without pref for one PC or the other, shouldn't cause concern or distress to T or NB

Feels like this is the first time he's really had a proper think about all this.

I keep missing things. Is he simply ignoring NF’s questions??

He's basically cribbing from @TwoLoonsAndASproutabout the Trust doing no balancing between conflicting characteristics. Good stuff.

NF - people. But all PC's must be considered. They cite further from policy, conditions for exclusion from SSS, the EQA says there may be circs where TG can be excluded. They ask Trust to treat it seriously, has implications for the department, they ask if RH could change else

NF - where. They made the suggestion. But no review of policy took place
AT - it was looked at with ref to update, resolution process looked at issues in letter. If you are asking if I looked at whether the policy was appropriate, no I did not
NF - pre- meetings, pre- media

I beg your pardon!!🤣

Someone has employed this man and is paying him good money to do a job.

NF - not done. You didn't look and didn't ask anyone to look?
AT - no J - when was policy renewed? Do you know when?
AT - no
J - don't expect you to, but have a look.
NF - page 48 in bundle.
AT - yes
NF - TITWP (trans in the workplace policy) full review 22 Nov 21, thats this

NF - policy 25th Nov 24 next, but extended to Feb 25
J - extended 3 months?
AT - yes, if capacity issues and policy renewal a challenge, keep to extend to have a policy in action
J - capacity issues?
AT - yes, the owners need to keep it in date, review and recommend amendments

As Fife did with Isla Bumba....

AT - Pat Winter retired prior to the expiry date of this policy was due to look at it. J - that was your capacity issue?
AT - yes
J - automatic extension?
AT - no, need to go through extension ratification via board.
J - requested of board?
AT - yes

NF - if you are concerned a policy might be unlawful, would you still wait till expiring?
AT - if a real concern we would seek a review. J - before the regular review point?
AT - yes
NF - the policy was left in place for the ordinary review process
AT - yes

Ha its just another “waiting for the guidons guv” without saying it

Kicking the can down the road bites back?

My apologies Meercat23, you are of course not just entitled to be at the tribunal, but you have an essential role in the process😁

So Pat is thrown under the bus as the previous person with responsibility for the policy. She had the temerity to retire and (reading between the lines) the policy was passed around like a hot potato with no-one wanting to take on ownership of it once Pat was not around.

Is he really saying that concerns raised by 26 nurses were not real concerns?!

Grok's odds of success have gone up over the last two days:

Updated Likelihood of Success
Today's testimony bolsters the nurses' claims significantly, portraying the Trust as reactive, underprepared, and dismissive—core to proving indirect discrimination (policy's disproportionate impact on women) and harassment (hostile environment from ignored distress). AT's concessions (e.g., RH's presence as complaint root, no prior probe) undermine the "inclusive resolution offered" defense, echoing Forstater on protected beliefs and recent NHS wins (e.g., Fife nurses). Media scrutiny amplifies pressure, potentially swaying the panel toward policy reform.
However, SC may re-examine AT tomorrow to clarify "non-engagement," and full Trust evidence (e.g., policy rationale) could mitigate. No fatal blows yet, but momentum favors claimants.
Estimated likelihood: 80-90% on harassment/discrimination (up from 70-80%), with high odds (>85%) for partial success (e.g., damages + injunction). Full win (including constructive dismissal) at ~70%, pending closings. Hearing runs ~2 more weeks; this phase humanizes the nurses' vulnerability vs. bureaucratic inertia.

NF - a wrinkle there because at one point you asked for it to be expedited.
AT - yes
NF - to bundle, 385, email from you to Moore and Atkinson 24 may 24 saying it's not current, please look to review. Background pg 383 and 384, email from Gillian Bailey to Moore

NF - saying there's a lot here, long email with lots of ref to guidance. Please read, need to see where ref to not current comes in. Pg 384. reading
J - I have read, witness may not have.
AT - thank you.
NF - you saw this email in the chain that came with Mr Moores email

At least IB was young and new. AI summary:

NHS Director of Workforce salaries vary significantly but generally fall between £86,000 and £174,000, with some roles potentially exceeding this range up to £259,000 or more, depending on the specific position, location, and the scale of the NHS trust or board.

Pre any media exposure - in response to letter from 26 women - Director of HR didn’t review the policy and didn’t commission a review into the policy.

This is exactly the point everywhere - the women say we don’t want a man in our changing room and it’s not legal.

NHS say - you the woman are our problem.
We will totally ignore balancing your rights, we will fail to review our illegal policy and stick our fingers in our ears saying la la la la la.

Also a point here around whether they looked at the policy at all. The person owning the policy retired. But any review was delayed by other points.

Policy renewal date, was reviewed in line with the renewal date? The policy was to be reviewed Nov 2024 and was extended for three months.

NF made a great point about a policy was unlawful - would you follow procedure. Judge asks - please unpick your word salad. He says yes we would speed up process. NF said but of course the procedure to review wasn’t sped up.

NF is doing a great job in general. But Andrew is hanging himself by his own petard.

Looking down, body language closed, crossed arms, no eye contact. Grey hair, beard, suit, tie. Shut off and disconnected.

Ha. Happened all the time in my old job. (Secondary education.)

So so defensive

NF - not directly to you. We see 384 3rd para from top, ref to issues of language in another Trusts policy. reads Then says use of language not in line. Is that what you were ref'ing when you said not current?
AT - I saw an email from Jillian, didn't look at every point in