"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 7

[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&7)
Thread 4, 29-Oct to 31-Oct; TA, AM (day 7) JB (day 8)
Thread 5, 31-Oct to 04-Nov; JB (day 8), SW, CG, JR (day 9)
Thread 6, 04-Nov to 05-Nov; RH (day 10), SW (day 11)

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, NHS 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, NHS trust Head of HR
TA – Tracy Atkinson, NHS trust HR.
AM – Andrew Moore, NHS Head of Workforce Experience
JB – Jillian Bailey, NHS Workforce Experience Manager
AT – Anna Telfer, NHS Deputy Director of Nursing
SW – Sandra Watson, Matron for General and Elective Surgery
JR – Jodie Robinson, manager of Rose

FWS wasn’t a new decision, it confirms what the Equality Act had said. Therefore it’s not sensible to say it didn’t apply pre May 2025.

If it’s such an obvious point why is R’s counsel claiming it? Has he nothing else to say? Unless he wants to argue that Darlington was only following commonly-held (but wrong) beliefs about the law.

TT

Para 22. The apprehension is around rights and ‘Rose appearance remarkably masculine, visibly sexually functional. But difficult to square para 22 when keen not to paint Rose as a predatory male capable of overpowering them not reflected in the evidence

To complete the circle , back to 8 a which is experience of sex based harassment. Do not have the individual claimants lining up and saying ‘fearful because Rose might overpower me’

The group were not compelled to undress - because the presence of Rose put them off.

TT

Staying within direct discrimination. Para 29 about competing rights. Not the right word. A ‘balance’ must be achieved. Sex and gender reassignment. Again C refer to SC FWS.

TT

But the tribunal is looking at May 2024 …list of guidance from a range of bodies at that date.

And we did have the Haldane decision re: GRCs before that did we not?

TT

Again, a reference to For Women Scotland. ‘It is not the role of the court to argue the meaning of words, it has a more limited role in deciding policy ‘
J in SC they trawled through legislation but not the workplace regulations

TT

SC the Trust didn’t need to frame the way it did and in any event the tribunal is looking at the application of the policy at that time and accusations of harassment

Of course the 1992 regs mean the common understanding of the terms Man and Women. How could it possibly be argued any other way?

There was not a sniff of the latest nonsense in 1992.

TT

not sure if C are framing the policy as unlawful? Not clear
J
SC looking at in relation to equality act.
SC some commentators have different views
J do 1992 regs how do they fit with men/women in EA.

Everyone who is on X should retweet that to get the word out.

TT

SC let’s move onto harassment accusations. P 67.
By contrast complaint individually may become such ie a series of events which individually not harassment but collectively mount up

TT

In this case, individual incidents cumulatively
J is that not just semantics?
SC tbd. Person A Engages with B and is defined by C as harassment of C.
J an individual cannot rely on experiences of another individual?

TT

SC we have something different here. The point is each claimant must establish facts in respect of themselves. Not irrelevant but does it establish harassment of individual?

TT

What they said cannot establish harassment of an individual claimant. Our duty to test

I’m unable to watch live today due to meetings so thanks @IDareSay for the TT posts (which I can speed read in gaps!)

TT

Credibility section. The Trust is not saying the C are lying. Ms Hutchinson relied somewhat on what others told her. It’s not implying anyone is lying it might be they’re wrong.

TT

The reality is Rose was using the CR. From time to time claimants would see her and her presence was provocative. Anything Rose said or did was viewed through their prism.

TT

At some stage their underwear was displayed . We’re saying you’re wrong - not walking around , simply getting changed.

TT

Not harassment. Just changing.

I think donations to CrowdJustice can and do get sent to not-for-profit organisations rather than the solicitor (CJ terms state that this is so; the safeguard seems to be in place to gove assurance when individuals are the case managers), but in this case I am glad CC are funding the nurses and content to donate on that basis.

I think CC would have done better to set a much lower initial target, and then set a stretch target later on, to ensure they qualify for donations. They also could be clearer in specifying what the money is far. As of now, there is no full ongoing investigation by NMC, and it is also too early to know whether there will be need or grounds for appeal. I think it's fine for CC to want help towards the current court costs, but they probably should just say that. It's reasonable for people to want to know where their money is going, and there are several barristers on the CC staff, so they just need to refine their approach, I think, and write with a bit more focus on a not-necessarily Christian audience for this case.

Mr Fetto is definitely worth his wages in this instance!

TT

Claim of harassment by Trust. Ally Quinn August 2023 complaint Ms Bailey (not a claimant) other attempts made by Trust to shift blame. Where is the allegation explained? How ? Which claimants affected? No attempt to explain why allegations amounted to harassment

Not harassment. Just changing.

Disingenuous tripe.

At least he's consistent. Everything he's said so far has been disingenuous tripe.

That looks a very scrubbed clean profile. No posts or reposts for the last year.

I do hope the tribunal finds for the nurses. But if it doesn’t, that’s a whole new peaking experience for the nation IMO.