Following a 3-week trial, the barristers in the landmark Darlington nurses case in Newcastle Employment Tribunal, have made closing speeches today and exchanged written submissions.
Niazi Fetto KC, representing the ‘magnificent seven’ Darlington nurses who are suing their employer County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, has told the Tribunal the case has exposed “systemic failures” in safeguarding female staff and respecting workplace dignity.
Supported by lawyers at the Christian Legal Centre, the nurses – Bethany Hutchison, Lisa Lockey, Tracy Hooper, Annice Grundy, Jane Peveller, Carly Hoy, and Karen Danson – allege indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation after being forced to share a female-only changing room with a biological male colleague under the Trust’s Transitioning in the Workplace (TIW) policy.
The submissions reveal a pattern of institutional failure and disregard for female staff, including:
- Dismissal of complaints as “rumblings” and “noise in the system”, with managers insisting nurses “needed education” to be more inclusive.
- No risk assessment under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, despite clear legal obligations to provide separate changing facilities for men and women “where necessary for reasons of propriety.”
- Trivialisation of serious concerns, even after a letter signed by 26 nurses warned of “a huge risk to our female employees.”
- Failure to act, leaving women to change in unsafe, makeshift facilities that breached fire regulations for nine months.
“You have to accept It”
The tribunal heard that in August 2023, a now retired senior matron, told nurses they had to accept a man in the female changing room because of “the inclusiveness of the NHS.” This statement set the tone for what the nurses describe as a two-year long struggle to have their concerns taken seriously.
During cross-examination, Andrew Thacker, the Trust’s commissioning officer, admitted the investigation process failed entirely:
Q: After a year since 26 signatories raised the complaint that a biological man was using the changing room, what did the investigation conclude?
A: Yes, that was factually correct, but it was in accordance with Trust policy, and investigating the policy was out of scope.
Q: So the investigation you set up did not address the central complaint?
A: Yes.
Q: It has utterly failed to deal with the central complaint raised. You are nodding.
A: That is what you are telling me.
When asked why the Trust did not take an interim measure – such as asking the male staff member to change elsewhere while allegations were investigated – Thacker replied bluntly:
“I think this is a fair question.”
Q: Do you have an answer?
A: “No.”
Senior management under fire
The submissions dismantle the actions of Tracy Atkinson, Gillian Bailey, and Susan Williams, and highlight the absence of Helen Coppock, revealing:
Tracy Atkinson’s stance: She told colleagues she “would not support or advocate asking a member of staff who was transitioning to change somewhere else.” Atkinson later described the nurses’ complaints as “noise in the system” and suggested they needed to be “educated” and “broaden their mindset.” She denied under oath that she said this but compelling evidence at the tribunal has made it clear that it is highly likely that she did. Throughout the nurses’ ordeal, Ms Atkinson made it clear that she would ‘not advocate’ Rose having to change anywhere other than the female changing room.
Gillian Bailey’s advice: Despite never visiting the changing room, Bailey advised that upsetting Rose could be “illegal discrimination,” while dismissing nurses’ objections as mere “discomfort.” Her guidance prioritised policy compliance over safeguarding, recommending that complainants simply “use alternative facilities.” Closing submissions revealed that Gillian Bailey never questioned the correctness of the Trust’s Transitioning in the Workplace policy, even when pressed in cross-examination. She admitted she was “about to review it anyway” but took no steps to accelerate that review or call for a fresh impact assessment, despite acknowledging an “absence of clear advice on balancing these specific issues.”
Instead of addressing nurses’ repeated complaints about safety and dignity, Bailey maintained the policy’s imbalance in favour of allowing a biological male to use the female-only changing room. The only measures she proposed were long-term estate changes to create gender-neutral facilities and vague “dialogue” or “compromise” solutions, while dismissing the requested outcome of a separate facility as “gender-critical.” Ultimately, nothing was done.
Susan Williams’ conduct: As head of HR compliance, Williams oversaw an investigation described as “byzantine and oppressive.” She failed to provide the investigator with the TIW policy for seven months, treated the policy as “out of scope,” and issued letters threatening disciplinary action against complainants. Williams admitted shredding handwritten notes during live litigation and excluded key documents from the investigation report, creating what the nurses describe as an intimidating and biased process.
Helen Coppock’s absence: Coppock, Associate Director of Nursing, was not called to give evidence despite being central to key decisions. When senior nurse Sandra Watson raised concerns about posters declaring the female changing room an “inclusive space,” Coppock instructed her to “leave it alone” and allowed the posters to remain. The nurses argue this was a deliberate signal that their objections were unwelcome and that the Trust was doubling down on its stance. Ms Coppock also refused to sign off works that would make the nurses’’ ‘temporary’ changing room compliant with fire safety regulations.
These actions, Mr Fetto argued demonstrate animus rather than impartiality, with management determined to enforce the policy at all costs.
Supreme Court ruling
The nurses’ legal team argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland is highly relevant because it confirmed the law as it has always stood under the Equality Act: sex means biological sex, and employers are permitted to provide single-sex facilities.
The submissions state:
- There is no legal right for a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to use a single-sex changing room corresponding to their adopted gender.
- Regulation 24 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 requires separate changing facilities for men and women “where necessary for reasons of propriety,” which clearly applies where staff undress to underwear in communal spaces.
- The Trust’s argument that For Women Scotland has “no bearing” was dismissed as baseless. Counsel for the nurses stressed: Counsel for the nurses stressed: At the risk of stating the obvious, the law at the relevant time was the same as the law is now. For Women Scotland declared the law as it had been since the Equality Act came into force.”
In short, the case reinforces that the Trust’s policy was incompatible with existing law, and its claim of “balancing competing rights” was misleading because there were no competing rights in law, only a statutory duty to maintain sex-based separation in changing rooms.
Trust’s defence and its wider implications
The Trust’s barrister, Simon Cheetham KC, argued that the TIW policy reflects practices “widely used across the NHS,” suggesting the Trust’s stance aligns with national norms and trying to distance it from accountability.
The nurses’ legal team countered that this is not a justification but an indictment, exposing a widespread cultural failure across NHS institutions for years.
Concluding the hearing, Employment Judge Seamus Sweeney reserved his judgment.
Darlington nurse and President of the Darlington Nursing Union, Bethany Hutchison, said:
“The last few weeks have been a rollercoaster of emotions, and we now hope and pray for justice in this matter, not just for us, but for countless women and girls across the country.
“Our lives took a very unexpected and sharp turn when we simply objected to having a man in our changing room, and it feels strange to relive the experience of the past two years as it is unfolded and minutely examined in the courtroom. We have put our careers on the line for raising concern and asking for the basic right and dignity to get changed in privacy. No one should have to go through what we have.
“We are hugely grateful to our legal team and the Christian Legal Centre, but also to the public from all walks of life and backgrounds for their amazing support throughout this time. We could not have got this far without you.”
Find out more about Darlington Nurses
