"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

Thank you for the link just watching now.

So I think that last witness really cleared up the Trust's earlier argument that the nurses hadn't followed the right procedure, or called their rumble/complaint/concern the right thing, or written in the right colour pen etc.

She made it very clear that whatever they did or said or danced, they were to be ignored and dismissed.

Is that the theatre manager TW escorting Rose to the car?

Yes, I do believe it is. Who'd have thought it.

I wish they had asked this witness if she put the poster up. edit for typo

I'm following with interest. As I don't know the NHS/HR procedures, how should the whole thing have unfolded, thinking that it was pre-FWS Supreme Court clarification?
My understanding is: prompt action, investigation to understand whether the allegations re the behaviour in the changing room were true. In parallel, a check with the legal team to understand whether the policy was lawful, which could have taken the direction of excluding the male for a proportionate aim (I can't remember the exact wording of the previous EHRC guidance). As a minimum, a quick process to find an appropriate alternative provision (although, if the policy wouldn't change, Rose could have entered there, too?). Have I understood correctly that there is/was another trans-identifying person in the Trust, who was changing in a separate space (even pre-FWS), so this could have been proposed to Rose?

Goodness me, that witness was absolutely infuriating. I think NF did manage to wangle out that the response to the nurses complaint of Rose being in the CR was "he's allowed by policy, tough shit", and any further complaints were minimised, shelved, delayed and fudged. Whereas Rose's counter-complaint was dealt with promptly and Rose was actually given more information than appropriate.

I strongly suspect an undercurrent of "men will sue, women will complain but go away eventually" in their rationale, like in Fife. I hope these Tribunals and the existence of the JKR fund will at least start to dispel some of those assumptions. It would be nice to think that in the future women will get taken seriously to start with and issues are properly resolved before they get to Tribunal

Was that Tracy Atkinson escorting Rose into the car?

She was trying to open the flippin’ car door for Henderson! Totally (metaphorically) hooked on the hit of validating him.

It was, @ickky

I like what Maria Kelly stressed in her evidence - her complaint was with her employers for giving the wrong advice and allowing men in the women's facilities. Not with the men themselves.

I think it has to be considered that some of these men may be suffering from poor mental health rather than just power tripping misogynistic fetishism. The two aren't always going to be mutually exclusive.

I don't actually feel that sympathetic to Rose but he could argue he has been stiched up and put in a dodgy position by his employers, in which women can say he might have been staring at them while they were getting changed. I'm even less sympathetic to Upton but I am willing to conceive that both are perhaps not psychologically very stable or well. Mental ill health would not at all excuse their behaviour or absolve of responsibility, but my thoughts about "affirming" are that it is not in fact kind to play along with delusions and would be kinder to suggest therapy. That would also apply to Rose and Upton.

Yes Rose and Upton should know better. But if I were them I would be wondering if I could argue that my employer had failed me in their duty of care when I was mentally unwell and emotionally unstable. And maybe seek some compensation. "Of course I wasn't very well, I was going round saying I was a woman! I was convinced I was a woman!"

If they'd been going round saying they were Batman or invisible or else something demonstrably untrue you would expect employers to say "Dave, I think maybe you need some time off. Is there anyone we can call to help you?" Not "ok Batman! Here's the keys to the roof, I know you like to travel by jumping from building to building. Off you go."

I don't think I have explained that very well but hopefully you know what I mean.

Really looks like it - the glasses on head pose is very distinctive

Good spot looks like it

With a monster umbrella

It was the glaring face that jogged my memory.

I've just taken a better screenshot. It's Definitely Tracy W from theatres and not Tracy A from HR

Who are the other people sharing the car with TW and RH?

Edited to say I needed to watch the clip on the ITV website

On the contrary, this is a very good explanation (ok batman….)

I couldn't find my glasses earlier, and then I cuaught myself in the mirror and was wearing them on my head like that.

<sigh> ain't middle age grand.

I missed that bit!

And I think the woman who got in the front of the car was the matron? Who gave evidence that didn't really help the Trust's side.

That performative 'escorting poor vulnerable huge bloke to his car'...
Upton got the same treatment...
Do these confused women think that he is a little child??

Rose Henderson is an entitled man pushing his luck and getting away with it, that’s no surprise at all.

The HR team are both incredibly clueless about their own area, and using a sort of cruel and poisonous ineptitude to make people they don’t like STFU.

Well that just goes to show where their loyalties lie (as if their evidence didn't already give it away 🙄). I wonder if it's a deliberate "show of support" or if they've just naively blundered into a very public faux pas...

I'm getting serious deja vu.

I got distinct Mafia vibes from it! I am a bad person...