"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 4

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, KD (day 1 of evidence) and BH (day 2).
Thread 2, 23-Oct to 28-Oct; BH (day 2), CH, JP, MG (day 3&4), TH, SS, ST, LL (day 4), JS, AT (day 5)
Thread 3, 28-Oct to 29-Oct, AT (day 5&6), TA (day 6)

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 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 Seamus Sweeney
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
SW - Sue Williams, NHS Trust HR
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, claimant
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany
CH – Carly Hoy, claimant
JP – Jane Peveller, claimant
MG – Mary Anne (aka Annice) Grundy, claimant
TH – Tracy Hooper, claimant
SS – Siobhan Sinclair, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust
ST – Sharron Trevarrow, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust, former housekeeper and wellbeing officer
LL – Lisa Lockey, claimant
JP – Professor Jo Phoenix, expert witness
JS – Jane Shields, witness for the claimants
AT - Andrew Thacker, witness for the respondents, NHS trust Head of HR
TA – Tracy Atkinson, witness for the respondents, NHS trust HR.

Who is the man in the pic in the Boswell piece?

Can I ask does anyone with knowledge of these things know who would have chosen the witnesses for the Respondents? Would it be the Trust themselves? Or would it be their legal team based on their involvement in the process/job title with no idea how ridiculous they were going to come across ?
Leonardo seemed to have gone for reputational damage limitation by only having 1 witness representing them but this lot have thrown caution to wind and served up comedy gold!

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1984149032067797290?t=MCtMbRQVkI3nxblOI3QNzg&s=19
Another great summary of evidence from Bruce Bowman.

One thing to note, that was pointed out by@Justabakera while back, is that up to the Supreme Court judgment these cases were being argued on the basis of WORIADS beliefs but this case, accepting that the Equality Act operates as set out in the judgment, is being argued on the much more direct basis that RH is a man.

Probably they’ve all been named in the 8 claimants application to ET for this case.

Didn't Stephen Cheetham say that the SC judgement didn't apply? I thought that was what he said with the tongue in cheek/snide remark about "a children's author".

He did and that worried me but as things went on I decided that what he meant was that it wasn't an issue to be argued over. Because it was effectively already incorporated into the case.

Bigg, double g.

I'm wondering why the Times has stopped reporting. There was an article on the first day of the trial by Sanchez Manning and nothing since. I've checked every day and I searched the archives in case I missed it, nada.

Well thank you kindly, imaginary Beetle! Those T shirts are gorgeous.

And that's inspired me to a chant: "Nice girls don't sue, Adult Human Females do!"

Wishful thinking? Didn’t Jane Russell argue the same?

Surely it follows that if the FWS ruling doesn't apply, the 1992 workplace regs do?

Ah, but you're forgetting the killer argument that the 1992 regs don't define men and women¹ so they are impossible to interpret and who knows who's allowed where?

¹ Because they were written back when the world was sane enough that everybody knew what words meant.

Argh, Amaryllis, I didn't realise that something didn't need a tune to be an earworm... 🤣

Ah but I bet you are an expert on what these folks are NOT responsible for 😂

Ah, ok

Anything?

Not responsible for anything!

apparently.

"But it also knows that the new code of practice will be unpopular with many of its supporters. It is seizing on the idea of a regulatory impact assessment to delay the inevitable; and to redirect the fury of its activists to the courts and tribunals, and to the brave individuals who will have to go to court at great personal cost, often one by one, sometimes in groups like the Darlington nurses, to enforce their rights. It’s a craven exercise in blame-shifting.
This is not what leadership looks like. "

Damn right.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2025/10/31/cracking-the-code/

So, it's EDI day. These can often be rather special in ETs about genderism.

I think he is trying to focus the case on the accusations about Rose’s behaviour in the changing room rather than his mere presence and how few of the Cs had actually claimed to have witnessed the inappropriate behaviour. I think the nurses would have been better focusing if his mere presence rather than his behaviour but IANAL and perhaps they needed additional ammo to show detriment.

Yes, with a defence that RH being in the women's changing room could be justified for some reason having fallen away, SC is putting his efforts in to defeating the claims that relate to what he was doing while he was there. And also to the Trust's handling of the complaints by the claimants.

Love Naomi. She really does just cut through all the BS, doesn’t she?

Wes Streeting was head of Education at Stonewall for 18 months so I would’ve pin any hope on him gripping the situation.

I'd have thought that's quite an awkward position to maintain. "Well he only sexually harassed one woman... and then the hospital did nothing to discipline the offender or protect either the victim or all the other potential victims".

Just about every one of the claimants have stated under examination that their issue was that there was a man in the women’s changing room. I think they’ve been pretty clear on that.