Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

[DrProfessorYaffle]

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/h-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust-and-others-2401211-slash-2024-and-2407178-slash-2024

"Although the claimant has taken steps to change attributes of their sex
from female, by changing their name to a name which can be identified as of
either sex, and has changed their preferred pronouns, those are not in our
view attributes which are for the purpose of moving from one sex to the other,
they are steps in the process of moving away from the female sex to a
different gender identity, ie that of non binary. The claimant is not proposing,
nor do they intend to take any steps to reassign their sex from that of female
to male.
105. We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected
characteristic of gender reassignment."

'On 31 January 2024, Yvette Dunn failed to acknowledge the Claimant in a corridor interaction, responding with a brief “hi” and turning away'

JFC.

What a lovely sensible read.

Dispensed with the sex is a spectrum / transition is a spectrum rubbish. Says all that case law tosh is pre FWS.

Now you need to be a man wanting to identify as a woman and the only protection you get is due to that reassignment.

Also this new made up tosh and we live in a binary society so it’s normal for everyone not to know how to fit in with your coercive language but they apologized.

Couldn’t be clearer - you’re the problem, everyone accommodates you and you’re still a horror.

Upton claimed similar dissing by Sandie Peggie.

Was just going to say the same. Strikingly similar.

And presumably this person made notes a la Upton too.

I just couldn't recall this stuff months down the line but they clearly squirreled it all away for these purposes.

Played out as a skit with Upton's little wave in the tribunal...

Oh joy. Counsel for the claimant was RoMoWh.

Lack of forelock tugging.

All part of the script isn't it? Monitor everyone for all failures to genuflect deeply enough.
As said upthread - coercive control of others is embedded in this ideology

How do you know?

I'd love to know how much this nonsense is costing the NHS. Aside from the huge costs of tribunals, there's the cost involved in one individual attempting to reorganise how every other colleague goes about their work. The IT dept and the vaccine nurses both say they have changed working practise in response to this person's demands. There's the management time, HR time, constant training. And always, always masses of time spent off sick recovering from every perceived offence they can manage to identify in perfectly ordinary interactions with colleagues.

This is a just one person, but this goes on all across the NHS adding up to millions which is lost to patient services.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Miss C Widdett – Counsel
Respondent: Ms R White – Counsel

They only wreak such havoc if they're not summarily dismissed for the most grotesque bullying, due to weak management.

That totally didn't register with me! Is that who that is? Oh dear.

Absolutely. The wasted time caused by this individual’s self absorption and self importance is shocking. I imagine she is utterly insufferable to work with.

That means he won! He was representing the NHS trust and arguing against the Claimant and their TRA stance.

Interesting.

In fact he was acting for the Respondent ie defending the claim. This is from the judgment linked up thread.

REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Miss C Widdett – Counsel
Respondent: Ms R White – Counsel

Ms R White was counsel for the Respondents i.e. the Trust and others.

Absolutely.

And they have to recognise that they have stitched themselves up with their stupid illegal policies too.

Paragraph 137 is glorious. It reads, in its entirety:

All claims fail and are dismissed.

As six word phrases go, it's up there with Johann Lamont's amendent ("For the word gender, substitute sex").

I did wonder if it was him but didn’t want to assume as ‘White’ isn’t an unusual surname.

I would have paid good money to have been able to watch this ET.

Ah just noted that White is the Rs counsel. If it was him I would definitely pay to watch him defend against a NB claimant

Is it definitely that RMW? I assumed it was, but now I'm second guessing myself.

If it is that RMW, that is indeed very interesting!

Unless there is another 'R White'?

I keep getting something like that scrubs meme running through my mind 'Haech is crazy'

I've checked the Register and the only Ms R White who is a barrister is RMW.

But I don't know whether counsel at an employment tribunal has to be a barrister.