"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

Hmm. So, the nursing staff had to change before and after work. The female changing room had at least one male in it. It appears just about any male who wanted to go in there to ‘just change’/ give an eyeful of his bits through holes in his underwear could do so. It appears any male who wanted to get an eyeful of women changing (obligation on their part) could wander in to do so.

There were no other suitable female only changing areas. Nobody gave a toss if the women had to change in a pokey fire trap if they didn’t want to be unconsenting and easy targets of possible male flashing and voyeurism.

But there was no compulsion. It was all a choice.

I think that the second the policy came into being that allowed men into the female changing rooms, then Rose or no Rose, the women from that moment on were compelled to change in front of men.

It doesn't matter if no men ever entered the changing room, the threat of them being allowed to enter existed and I would feel harassed and discriminated against by that policy's very existence.

TT

Evidence is completed in B Hutchison and others vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust. We will shortly be live tweeting the second part of this morning's Submissions.

Even then, the males could have followed them to the pokey fire trap if they’d wanted. With the trusts blessing!

TT

Niazzi Fetto, barrister for claimants
NF draw strings together. Different to my opening

I have not isolated individual issues and claimants. Cannot do what my learned friend has done. Need to reference tables This is cumulative. This is collective they experienced it as a group

Table 2 goes to allegations. If I had brought everything it would have become a book.

If they weren't compelled to change with at least the risk of a male present perhaps SC could mention the options open to them ...

TT

The temporal scope. No question all matters pleaded are in amended pleading October and prior to that 18 November last year. Response amended in April 2025.

TT

Pleadings a mix of concluded acts and continuing state of affairs. Including declining to address concerns.

On that basis, isn’t it also true the nurses weren’t compelled to work for this employer and had the choice to quit and work somewhere else if they didn’t like it?

So obviously they had only themselves to blame.

TT

The latter is a Nov 2024 allegation. If position in law are right and frozen then the PCP Indirect dis works till 24. And declining to address concerns up to Nov 2024.

TT

PCP s ongoing when claim amended
J why do we need to adjudicate on that? Established May 24
NF may become a remedy. All claims happened before that.

TT

J that up to Nov 2024. May 24 then that’s it isn’t it with PCPs. I don’t want us to be distracted by (other references) arguments
NF law sees as continuous

TT

NF otherwise declining and continuing to decline frozen at date of amendment.
J or stick with case as already pleaded. I understand the point.
NF important to claimants 18 Nov not cut off date

TT

NF it’s been hinted this case not about GC beliefs. This isn’t a case about beliefs. It’s about affected by male in FCR. The ideology was on the other side. Those who complained were told to be ‘educated’

I'm missing Naomi and her wonderful summing ups. NF just isn't doing it for me.

TT

Emails from 2023 - meetings and comments from 2024. We see it from Thacker response ‘it is not reasonable Rose be asked to change somewhere else’. Ms Williams withheld the policy from the investigator.

TT

It expressed both the complaint and the solution (Rose change elsewhere) and the Trust provide for both.

TT

A male was changed in the female changing room. It’s straightforward. Indirect discrimination because policy made it occur. No consultation. Unbalanced.

Agree, but this is good:
NF it’s been hinted this case not about GC beliefs. This isn’t a case about beliefs. It’s about affected by male in FCR. The ideology was on the other side. Those who complained were told to be ‘educated

I like 'the ideology was on the other side' - could be applied in lots of cases eg M Croxall's 'correction' of 'pregnant people.'

TT

Use of the CR was caused or permitted that. Meant that Rose obviously masculine using CR regular basis. Disadvantage at a group level. Women are more fearful than men about getting changed with opposite sex. Seems self evident but had to prove it

It seems Rose only started trying to feminise his appearance once he became aware that a complaint had been made.

Does anyone know the timeline?

Seems to be once the wedding and tribunal were drawing near

TT

Gave rise to fear modesty dignity not only in research but has been in English law since before WW2. The claimants suffered that fear and apprehension

Yes, I know what you mean. However, I think it's important that cases are won with a variety of legal counsel, not just the usual suspects. The law is the important thing.

The main striker in my football team is crocked - in the past that has mean the team dropping down the league to the relegation zone because they fell apart without the man in front. This season the rest of the team has stepped up and we're still scoring goals and winning. I think the judge would appreciate the football analogy.

New thread:

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