"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.

She even said, in her email, that the nurses were just whinging, but he might sue.

Being sued by a bunch of whinging nurses is nothing compared to being sued by a transwoman for hurting his feelings.

But there's something in that, in their bubble they'd be worried about all hell breaking loose among their captured staff and unhinged external activists targeting them.

It just seems weird that her defence is there was just so much confusing information (which I don’t dispute) so in a situation like that it would have an email to the lawyers asking for guidance. Then it is the lawyers problem. All she would have do now is say ‘I didn’t know so I got advice which I relied on’. No one would then blame them if they followed that advice.

Despite saying she knew about Forstater she didn’t identify that the nurses could potentially be being discriminated against….but incorrectly stated that arise was being discriminated against. 🤔

This morning has been pretty damning. From watching, it was like she was within touching distance of grasping the issue, but either couldn't or wouldn't make the final connection. I note that her managers and colleagues are present which may be part of any hesitancy on her part.

On the plus side, I do like NF's occasional "You're nodding" comments. No idea why, but they make me smile.

When the witness looks towards C’s counsel to answer his questions, as she does most of the time, then at least some of them are in her direct eyeline. They are sitting on the row directly behind the one for barristers/solicitors. C’s and R’s legal teams are separated by a small gap which serves as a passageway.

It’s reminding me of the row of Dr Upton’s supporters earlier this year.

I don’t know if it’s worse to say” no I wasn’t aware of that piece of legislation/document” versus “yes I was aware if it but cannot remember if I used it to come to my recommendations”.

NF when did you first hear about 92 reg

JB think it was about, honestly don't know, during this case at some point.I think when I did look at it it talks about I don't know exact wording, male female but before SC ruling on what that meant

Still seems to be hazy on what the SC ruling dealt with (specifically GRCs), even though that has already been explained as part of the questioning.

I'll give her some leeway for that, given that she is in a stressful situation, but how do you become a Workforce Experience Manager without being aware of The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992?

(Quoting of sprout's post accidental)

As per usual at the time of the Forstarter ruling the TRA brigade focus on the “manifestations” of the protected belief.

The lack of word salad from this witness both in her communications at the time and now is brutally exposing what was really going on.

TT's first of the morning tweets

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1984188440733216983.html

*but incorrectly stated that Rose was being discriminated against

flipping autocorrect.

Now that's interesting, JB said that she'd encountered a similar situation twice before in previous experience and for those a separate space was provided for the transitioning person.

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but if there was lots of conflicting guidance about this, wouldn’t the SC judgment be a better place to at least start?

I note that the sex of the transitioning individuals she had dealt with before was not mentioned.

I agree.

Good spot.

Are you suggestion perhaps that a transman would seek to be private from others in their own space in contrast to RH?

If you believe men pretending to be women are women then you see Rose as a woman being discriminated against by some nasty whinging meanies. You give no thought to the nurses protected belief that Rose is actually a man because your employer doesnt care about people who recognise biological sex.

Can we just take a moment to remember that yesterday Andrew Moore claimed (and I paraphrase widely) the current witness was so shit hot at her job and on top of everything that he felt able to entrust the entire thing to her to sort and took everything she fed back to him as being legally and factually correct.

Bet he feels a bit hoodwinked today!

Indeed.

Yeah, but dividers, tho.

I’d like to have seen the looks on those women’s faces when she suggested this as a solution.
And the idea that they should change their own working patterns to suit this character would actually offend me.

I think that would be the preferred justification, but the reality is that they all saw Rose as a man, and they would rather upset women than men. It was ever thus.

I wish they'd persued the idea: so women forced out of the women's space for a man to be 'included' have to find another space, in fact creating that single sex accessible space.... what happens to those women if the man follows and uses that space too?

What do the words 'accessibility' and 'equality' actually mean to this witness I wonder? Anything more than men trans?

It's interesting that absolutely everyone involved in this was reluctant to speak to Rose. No-one seems to have wanted to tell him he was unwelcome and he should change elsewhere. No-one even wanted to ask him if he could possibly change somewhere else.

Btw some people have mentioned that Rose could have gone in the cupboard the nurses were allocated when they complained. One did say he'd been seen in the corridor outside and since the cupboard opened off that corridor if there were 2 people inside one is potentially visible from outside.