Press Release

NHS Trust pressured and intimidated vulnerable nurses to drop concerns over male in female changing room, tribunal hears

6 November 2025         Issued by: Christian Concern

Evidence presented in ongoing litigation against County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust reveals that management pressured vulnerable nursing staff to abandon complaints about a male colleague using a female changing room during what was described as an “independent” investigation.

The nurses, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, argue that the investigation amounted to further victimisation, harassment, and discrimination, with staff intimidated into silence after raising safeguarding concerns.

The dispute began when 26 nurses at Darlington Memorial Hospital signed a letter objecting to sharing a female staff changing room with a biologically male colleague, “Rose,” who identifies as a woman. Rather than addressing these concerns, the Trust launched a counter-complaint from Rose and escalated threats of disciplinary action, delivered in person to nurses while on duty.

Cross-examined by the nurses’ barrister, Niazi Fetto KC, HR manager Sue Williams, who led the 10-month-long investigation, admitted that the issue of Rose’s access to the female changing room was deemed “outside the remit” of the inquiry. Fetto challenged this, stating:

“This was at the very heart of the investigation” , and added that Williams was “determined that the complaint from the 26 would go nowhere and that Rose’s complaint should be dealt with, ” describing the process as designed to intimidate and stress staff.

Nurses describe intimidation

Nurse Bethany Hutchison testified that the Trust’s handling of its “Resolution Procedure” left staff feeling unsupported and fearful. She cited:

• Refusal to allow legal assistance or union involvement
• Withholding basic information about the Investigating Officer
• Creating an environment where nurses feared job loss and immigration consequences

One international nurse withdrew her signature after threats of disciplinary action, fearing visa loss and deportation. Another discovered she had been falsely recorded as having “withdrawn” from the complaint.

Hutchison also described inaccuracies in interview notes, with some nurses signing off without reading due to anxiety. One colleague, a domestic abuse survivor, broke down in tears during an HR meeting, saying she felt unsafe changing in front of Rose, who allegedly stared at her chest. Yet official notes later showed her denying any issue, she later confided she was “pressured” to abandon her allegations, terrified of losing her job.

Hostile meetings

Nurse Kirsten Coutts said she felt “ambushed and intimidated” during an investigation meeting:

“It was supposed to resolve our concerns, but became an interrogation. I refused to sign the minutes—they were inaccurate and omitted key context.”

Another nurse testified her signature was withdrawn without consent, stating: “I would rather get changed in the car park than lose my job.”

Quality Assurance exposes flawed investigation

Earlier, the Trust’s own Deputy Director of Nursing, Ana Telfer, who conducted a Quality Assurance (QA) review of Ms Williams’s investigation, testified that she found the investigation report to be confusing and  and lacking rigour. In her witness statement, Ms Telfer testified:

“The draft report left me with more questions than answers… I couldn’t confidently say it reached the right conclusions.”

Key QA findings included:

• No clear scope for the investigation
• Failure to interview complainants first
• Misrepresentation of concerns as “behavioural” rather than safeguarding and sex-based rights
• Lack of clarity on Rose’s gender identity status

The QA team questioned whether the report fairly represented nurses’ concerns, noting the line:

“The original concerns were not about behaviour but that someone assigned male at birth was using the female changing room.”

In conclusion, Telfer said: “Overall, I found that the report was disappointing, in particular for an externally produced product which I would have expected to be more thorough and display more professional curiosity and detailed analysis. In my view it was verbose but not to the point, and the conclusions were not sufficiently clear or based on the evidence. I felt that the analysis in places was stunted, and I don’t think the author did enough in terms of the questions asked or the review of evidence to draw clear conclusions.”

Further impartiality concerns arose after it emerged that independent investigator, Susan Newton, had publicly promoted LGBTQI+ inclusion online.

The hearing will continue on Friday morning with expert evidence from Professor Jo Phoenix.