"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

Big sigh from SC at the mention of 1992 regs

He didn't have a GRC so even in law he is a Man. We do not have self id.

TT

J let’s look at workplace regulations. 1992 Facilities for changing. Employers setting up suitable and sufficient facilities.

For reasons of health and propriety separate use by men and women. We know there are separate facilities. Para 83. You say there was an inconsistency in statutory guidance. Where is the inconsistency between policy and regulations?

SC what the trust says now the EA says men and women ; despite that wording at the time, the trust was interpreting it

J believes that in 1992 when people were writing law, "men" meant men and "women" meant women. SC wants the J to have no view about this at all but he's not winning on that point.

It's having cake and eating it. Where it's specified it doesn't mean that, and where it's ambiguous, it still doesn't mean that.

TT

J in 1992 there was no recognition of trans gender status.
SC inconsistency referee to by claimants
J but use is separate use

SC 1992 no recognition of gender reassignment true but then your task is what was the Trust at time doing (post EA 2010)

And the Trust wrote a titwhoop policy on the basis of self ID so surely all the but but butting coming from SC should be absolutely irrelevant

Not observing this morning but can offer an artist's impression of SC from his XX of the nurses.

TT

J Professor Phoenix evidence what you say?
SC we say ‘not independent’ and also with respect it doesn’t take us further
J why not?

TT

SC she was giving evidence about disadvantage / distress broad social pattern women more so if undressing
J compulsion?
SC the source of P evidence was criminological studies. So doesn’t take us much further

TT

J no one was compelled ?
SC they didn’t get undressed, because of Rose’s presence

The respondents argument that the nurses weren't compelled to undress as they didn't undress because they were too scared of Rose to change in front of him isn't the win they thinks it is.

Well the nurses had no other area to change, but had to change nonetheless, so I think compelled is correct.

Short break five minutes

TT

J Prof P ‘compelled’ in preliminary hearing ..?
NF para 4.
J she says ‘I’m interpreting compelled as a changing room shared with a member of the opposite sex.’

SC we should interpret as she means. No requirement to.

J comfort break 5 mins

TT

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1988173621714641294.html

One thing interesting about SC's arguments is that he's sort of saying that the Supreme Court judgment had no relevance to anything that happened prior to 16 Apr 2025 but that the concepts introduced in the Equality Act go back to the time of the dinosaurs if not before.

I’ve seen that picture before and thought that she looks as though she’s contemplating getting her knitting needles out of the carpet bag and stabbing him with them.

Joined about half an hour ago. Caught up on TT.

The Judge does seem to grasp the right points e.g. article 8 also applies to the claimants.

Interesting SC is going with guidance as published at the time I.e. before SC. That could be a mitigation in that the Trust thought their policy was lawful.

However, as a pp pointed out Haldane was December 2022.

This is a good test for the 1992 regs.

Dipping in and out thanks to work, but now seems a good time to tell you about the new thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5442434-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-8

Thanks @ThreeWordHarpy

I'll carry on posting TT here until full.

Thanks @ThreeWordHarpy, @IDareSay, @Justabaker

Also @MyrtleLion, I hope things went ok at your hospital appointment today.

You’ve been such a help on these threads.

The words I want to say would get me banned. My own experience with SC is that he is a pleasant person and knows when he has a dog of a case as in Westminster City Council. He is using the weapons at his disposal very effectively

However, a couple of observations.

SC is wandering in the swamp of the Supreme Court has told us what men and women mean in the EA...but let's assert it means something else in the workplace regs.
And Darlington was wrong about the EA but so was everyone else.
And a policy isn't relevant until it's applied.....hmm.
Also he was ducking and weaving on the convention rights. Why?

The clock on the wall of the court room is a couple of minutes slow.