"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.

Reminds me of someone applying for a job quoting all the courses they’d been on and assuming that they actually delivered competence - which is completely lacking here.

Something wrong with my computer, will have to close and reopen.

They're all from the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust.

Ooh! 😧

From TT

LW and ? said that RH had worked for trust for a long time wasn't right for RH to change
You describe as difficult meeting
JB two competed issues RH being discrim against and staff that didn't want to share with RH difficult because not an easy solution to the problem
NF 'I

You were hitting brick wall?
JB that's not what I said
NF you were being told that RH has a right to use that facility and anything different not to be countenanced
JB not put that way

Looking at trying to balance needs of people who didn't want to share with RH
That was only thing accommodated?
Yes because RH had been using for a number of years with no issue

NF policy doesn't address person with different gender ID
JB no

NF page 92 'wish to start using facilities of required gender and how communicated to colleagues' it's not a q of consulting or asking others' feelings
JB yes

NF - advice you gave after meeting, p288 bundle 2.

NF - Sorry 275

As confirmation of that you should read some of the reactions to the new society at Cambridge University which was announced earlier this week, the women-only one.

The three founders are being very principled, imo. One of the comments says that “not one but two” of them is the daughter of a journalist, as if that were a bad thing. I wonder if that helps them stand up and be counted, if their parents have given them the confidence to do this and stressed the importance of forming their opinions and sticking with them, in this case in a very public way.

Sorry, can’t check any references or give quotes; technology limitations atm.

JB two competed issues RH being discrim against and staff that didn't want to share

Under existing equality laws, wouldn't it have been an acceptable exception to stop R from using the women's CR? Am I right in thinking that? and If I'm right, how come JB didn't think of applying the legitimate exception option?

From TT

You read recently Yes Miss W and Miss Watson 'had a think since we spoke...reflected from objective standpoint.. on one hand risk of upsetting RH whereas for other staff the risk is just of them feeling uncomfortable therefore on this basis, rec going back to people who complained, we respect RH to use facilites of gender

"It wasn't a note of the meeting, it was notes I made as the meeting was happening." 😅 Haha!

There it is in black and white. JB was balancing that RH might be upset vs all of the nurses might complain. She made her recommendation on that basis.

I hereby withdraw my sympathy.

It seems JB didn't consider at any point that she was discriminating against the female nurses. The only discrimination that was considered only applied to Rose.

From TT

NF so you reflected on this meeting, and from what I can see you position was to recommend the position they took at that meeting.
JB that was in the email, we had talked at end of meeting that they would also go and look at options incl facilities for C

NF here you are saying tell Cs that although they feel uncomfortable we respect RH
JB yes after speaking to CIPD and national guidelines
NF the CIPD ack it was difficult
JB we talked about that.

Seems like feature-not-a-bug: other women would have to come forward and complain to even get to a staggered shift where they might not encounter RH in the CR. The knowledge about RH using the women's CR's wasn't exactly disseminated well by management either.

I thought i misheard her!

Thanks, then it was wishful thinking on my part! And ues, not the best use of time. Weird to have all your colleagues peering at you when you give evidence.

That about sums it up: Rose might get upset, whereas the women would just get uncomfortable, so Rose wins.

So when JB did her balancing, one RH was worth any number of nurses.

Clearly JB considered there was something very special indeed about RH.

He is super speshul, lest we forget.

"balance" indeed.
Asking Rose to change somewhere else would be discrimination. Gotcha.

From TT

NF the conclusion you came to after meeting, done the reading, was that the position was that risking upsetting Rose
JB discrim agaisnt RH
NF or asking if RH could change in cubicle would be

disrimc
JB yes
Whereas Cs there is no discrim

JB there is weighing up rights, taking proportionate approach in terms of looking at other options for those people, as they were talking about privicy element so that aspect could be explored
You sum that up 'keeping right side of law not satifying complaining staff

Everything viewed and assessed through the trans lens..

Does anyone think that she did not in fact realise that use of toilets and changing rooms has applicable H&S legislation?

those people

"other options for those people"

😧

From TT

NF Sept 23, were you aware that the ECRC had given guidance in 2018 and 2022 re gender reassignment
JB yes, and other guidance. That wasn't statutory
NH the 2015?
JB yes lots of guidance, not a clear solution to the issue.

Competing guidance, that was the discussion I had
NH but you aware of 2018 guidance?
JB yes
NF go to that in bundle