"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 8

[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)
Thread 7, 05-Nov to 11-Nov; SW (day 11), closing submissions

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 now complete. Submissions are being made on November 11th. 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

Yes. I think the HR Manager denied saying it and the judge didn't believe him.

I love our Jo Phoenix and i love that the judge gave her report so much credibility. That is so important

Now about to listen to PM on Radio 4. I hope Evan Davis is on so I can hear him talking about this in his sad voice.

Oh, it's not Evan Davis presenting. That's a shame.

Is it fuck a ‘partial victory’. Henderson just made sure that the gig is up for all males, no matter how they ‘present’ or feel or come across. It’s over.

Mr Threadbare Knickers blew it all to hell.

He's too upset

Great news! Sorry @ArabellaScott would you mind presumably reposting the link of the judgment? I've been skimming the thread and can't see it...and am on my way home and would like to read rather than rely on the BBC!

Literally speaking it is a 'partial' victory as they found for the Claimants for some parts and not others.

But I do think that actually strengthens the protections for women.

Men are excluded on the basis of maleness; its not muddied by being based on Rose's intent or actions or anything other than his sex.

No men in women's spaces:

Not if he's sincere
Not if he's lovely
Not if he's sad
Not if he really really wants to use women's spaces

This is a victory on the important part - that employers shouldn't allow males in female spaces, re the 1992 regs/Equality Act/FWS and Supreme Court.

I don't know about personally for the women involved, but for the bigger picture it is actually better that Rose was found to have done nothing wrong (although we may well think on the evidence presented that that isn't necessarily the case). Just the fact of him being in there was wrong. It's what we've said time and time again - we don't know who are the good ones, so we keep all men out. So men can't argue on the basis of what they did or didn't do, as they can't be there in the first place.

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ms-b-hutchinson-and-others-v-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-foundation-trust/

Fill your boots!

@Londonmummy66 - I have been looking for you.... I have a question re something you said re the Kelly case. Can I DM you?

I just love Sweeney

His judgment is an absolute pleasure to read.

Para 90:

Ms Wainwright was comfortable with Rose using the changing room. She personally had no concern. She believed that those who wished Rose to use alternative facilities were inflexible in their views. She was, we find, right about that. However, she was equally inflexible in her view that Rose must not be asked even to consider changing elsewhere.

Thanks! Oh wow he's even done a press summary lol what a breathe of fresh air!

I agree partial judgement is an odd way of framing it.

There wasn't enough evidence against Rose personally - but that's the problem of having men in women's changing rooms.

They can sit in holey boxers looking at naked women and get away with it. The only way to stop that is keep them out, not charge them.

Hurrah! Victory for common sense!

Agreed

The one point where I think they went wrong is in Rose's behaviour in p 209

there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one user of changing facilities asking another user of those facilities ‘are you not getting changed yet’, or even in repeating the question.

where the words fall differently if the people are different sexes.

However since Rose denied using the words or meeting the claimant it would be difficult to reach the standard of harassment.

I've spent all afternoon reading the judgement and when I got to paragraph 432, I actually punched the air

You might think a woman repeatedly asking you that was a bit odd and inappropriate to put it mildly. But probably wouldn't interpret it as sexual harassment. From a man, particularly a man you are having to tolerate in your space very unwillingly and with high discomfort, he has just blown your dodgy bloke radar wide open.

I can see the judge's point, plus the he said/she said, but agree, it's better that it has nothing to do with the behaviours of an individual man, it's any man in that space at all.

Right fingers crossed we will appeal the Peggie case, Appeal judges will use this excellent legal reasoning and finally it will make case law...

Unfortunately, I think it's becoming apparent that women need to start quietly recording in difficult situations if they are going to prove harassment, as their word is never believed. I know it comes with its own issues, but frankly women are already being expected to fight this battle with both legs and one arm strapped behind their backs and at least that ends the 'it didn't happen'.

Sweeney is excellent and so clear on the Workplace Regs - safe toilets and changing rooms all round.

Beautiful and mirrors what I have said much more inelegantly over on the Kelly threads.

The Kelly and Peggie appeals are going to be great binding law.

Today is a good day and well done to all those involved in the case.

And all of us who gardened.

For those who want to fund more lawfare

Google crowd justice and darlington nurses and sow a few carrots

Weirdly this is one of those cases where on paper it's a partial victory in that there wasn't harassment. So you can't say that the judge found the women to be at risk due to safety concerns (physical or otherwise). But as I say it's more significant precisely because it found on dignity instead.

Until now the argument has started to become that women should put up with men because there isn't a risk with dignity of women being an invisible concept.

This has put the dignity of women front and central - and not only that but has stated that not only is this legitimate but it's completely fair and rational to be complaining on the basis of using your actual eyes and understanding this is a male not female.

This makes it a much more significant win. There isn't an element of women being precious (the only woman who complained cos everyone else is just fffffiiiiinnnneeee with it) or in need of extra protection (eg rape victims) either. It highlighted how not only was the complaints process unreasonable and tone deaf but it was actively hostile and unfair. These are just ordinary bog standard women who aren't right wing nutters. Just ordinary nurses doing their job asked for something perfectly reasonable and fair which should have happened from the word go.

It's almost a double down on the supreme court ruling. Which makes it amusing to see TRA characterise it as a partial victory when they hate the SC ruling so much.

NHS Darlington essentially had a problem of their own making here. In the process they've arguably created a situation where the privacy and dignity of the transwoman was harmed far more than if they'd just got the fuck on with it. The hospital in not recognising the issue ended up dragging the women and this transwoman through a very public court case which it really really didn't need to let happen. That's totally on them. The fact they've been told to go away and fix it out of the public view without the court interfering further is really testament to just how bullshit the process has been. It's not that they can't, it's that they didn't want to...

As for the cost of sorting the mess out? How come the cost is the problem of women at all? It's the justification that's always dragged out. We can't safeguard women cos it's too expensive. Well how fucking expensive is it to take you to bloody court? Fuck off and sort it you spineless twats.

Who had "become armchair expert on employment law" on their expectations of the 2020s?

I can't believe how well written and coherent this is in comparison to the Peggie ruling!

Thank you to those who have posted quotes from the judgement. I’m more and more shocked with each quote, absolutely love the clarity of each quote, this feels like the grown ups have eventually stepped in and said “enough now, you’re being ridiculous, deal with the facts”

edit for spelling

Yes, I said similar to one of or other of the numpty politicians on here who couldn't see it, eight odd years ago.

That a woman rubbing moisturiser into her legs after a swim, in the changing room, and glancing round was perfectly acceptable. But a man doing it?

Especially if you happen to have your children with you?

Nah.

It's the Staniland Question toned down but laid out bluntly in law.