On 14 December 2023, with the support of their manager, the
claimant arranged for an email to be sent to those in the Primary Care
Psychological Service within the Trust advising that the claimant wished to be
known as Haech Lockwood, that they identified as Trans/gender fluid and did
not identify as male or female, that they wished to be known as Haech as
using their deadname caused gender dysmorphia
In late March 2022 the claimant noticed that their
deadname continued to appear in the Microsoft Teams appointments in their
outlook calendar and when sending emails. They raised this problem with the
ICT team and explained the distress it was causing them. As the ICT team
believed they had already made the changes to resolve these problems, it
was agreed that a complete reboot of the laptop would be required for the
claimant and that was arranged to take place a few days later.
20. The reboot was put on hold, as on 2 April 2022 the claimant was signed off
as unable to work by reason of “stress and Covid”.
On 12 April 2022, the claimant received a letter from the Occupational Health
Department with an appointment, addressed to “Other Heather Lockwood”.
This caused the claimant further distress.
The claimant met with Janet Foster, the claimant’s Clinical Lead, on 27 April
to discuss their informal grievance of 5 April. This related to issues with the
ICT, concerns about a lack of support from management and the incorrect
name on the letter from the OH department. The outcome was by provided
by way of a letter that day. In that outcome, Ms Foster provided an explanation
from Mr Farnan of the ICT team why the name change had not been updated
across all systems. Mr Farnan reported that a new Trust profile had now been
created on the claimant’s device in their new name and that this would
remove all traces of their previous Microsoft account. The final step to alter
the claimant’s profile needed to be completed on the respondent’s premises
and it was intended that when the claimant returned to work, at an agreed
time a Senior IT technician would remotely make the changes and assist the
claimant in signing back into all accounts.
26. Ms Foster apologised on behalf of the ICT team for the errors which had
occurred and confirmed that the claimant had expressed she was happy with
the plan going forward. The claimant however wanted a formal written
apology from the ICT team that acknowledged the harm this issue had caused
them and a plan of intended actions that the ICT team would put in place to
ensure this didn’t happen again.
On 5 July 2023, the claimant contacted the ICT service desk by phone to
report an issue with their system. The call was taken by Jane Graves. She
logged the call as a ticket and the ticket was automatically sent to the claimant
by email. That ticket used the pronoun “her” to describe the claimant. It said:
“Customer would like to be able to use her Daily Task toolbar in Normal, but
settings is not able to be changed from Minimised”
36. The email was seen by the claimant on 4 October 2023 upon their return to
work after illness. The claimant asked that the ticket be reopened and the
toolbar issue be looked into. The claimant noted at the bottom of the message
that this was an act of misgendering which they found distressing that the
correct pronouns “they/their” be used in the future.
The claimant and others in the Trust use a system called Mail Central to
create letters which are later sent out to patients in the post. On 10 October
2023, while creating a letter, the claimant’s deadname email address
appeared next to their correct email address. The claimant was distressed by
this as they had understood that all ICT issues had been resolved and raised
their concern with their line manager, Mr Woodward straight away.
The claimant attended an internal vaccination clinic for a flu/Covid vaccination
on 10 October 2023. They noted within the form together with their name and
personal details that they were non binary. This was not spotted by the nurse
delivering the vaccinations who was either Linda Carrington or Amanda Stein.
The claimant has been unable to identify who spoke to them that day, but
says that the nurse read the form and stated “OK so she is here for both a flu
and vaccination clinic.” Neither of the nurses are individual respondents.
45. The claimant was distressed by the incident. They did not correct the nurse
at the time, and considered that this was not a minor oversight, as they
considered that the nurse should have spotted their non binary status.
On 11 October 2023, the claimant called the ICT service helpdesk and spoke
to Mr Brett Williamson. During the call the claimant was cut off and BW put a
note of the system saying:
Unable to call Haech back as her call came through on CISCO jabber and us
working remotely and the machine also showing as offline. If Haech calls
back, we need to run the O365 installer on her machine and test the link she
has been sent to join another organisation”.
50. The claimant had understood following the call with Jane Graves that a note
had been made on the system with their correct pronouns. In fact that note
only appeared on the particular service ticket as there was no way of putting
a pronoun field on the service desk system itself.
51. The claimant was distressed and disappointed at the further misgendering.
On 12 October 2023, Ms Dunn had a conversation with the claimant in the
claimant’s room. Ms Dunn was reporting a conversation she had had with one
of the claimant’s patients who was being handed back to the claimant
following a period of absence. The conversation was friendly, and during that
conversation, Ms Dunn relayed what the patient had said and in doing so
used the word “she” in respect of the claimant and also referred to the patient
calling the claimant “Helen.”
56. We accept Yvette Dunn’s evidence that she was quoting a patient. This is
supported by her referring to the name “Helen”, even though this was never
the claimant’s name. This is more likely to have been a mistake of the patient
than Ms Dunn who was aware of the claimant’s name and non binary gender.
The claimant says that Ms Dunn did not need to use the pronoun “she” and
in the context of the conversation should have changed the language to
ensure the claimant was not misgendered.
The claimant did not alert Ms Dunn to their concern and the conversation was
amicable. Ms Dunn left to go to her own room. Shortly afterwards the claimant
emailed Ms Dunn to express their concerns and told Ms Dunn that she had
misgendered them. The claimant commented that they understood it was
entirely without malice and was likely to be a mistake. They explained that
being misgendered was “like a gong going off in their head” and that was why
they couldn’t mention it in the conversation. The claimant then proceeded to
put paper across all but a few inches of the glass panel between the
claimant’s and Ms Dunn’s room. Although the claimant says they did this
because they felt unsafe, we are unclear what the claimant means by this.
Some three months later on 31 January 2024, the claimant arrived at the
office and saw Ms Dunn speaking with her manager in the doorway of the
manager’s office. The claimant alleges that Ms Dunn failed to acknowledge
them initially and when the claimant said good morning, Ms Dunn said “hi”.
and turned away.
On 3 January 2024, the claimant asked the respondent’s HR department for
a copy of their contract. The claimant was provided with copies of two
contracts that day. The first was a copy of the contract they had signed on 27
September 2021, which was in the claimant’s deadname, Heather Lockwood.
The second was a later contract reflecting the claimant’s reduction in hours
in December 2022. That contract was in the name Haech Lockwood.
63. The receipt of the contract in the claimant’s deadname caused them distress.
On 10 January 2024, the claimant was sent a request by their administration
team from a patient for a review call. The claimant noted on the patient system
that there was an alert that the patient would prefer to see a female therapist.
The claimant checked the notes on the system to see if there was a record of
the conversation with the patient, but there was not. The claimant emailed
their line manager, Mr Woodward and the manager of the Administration
Team to bring it to their attention and raise a complaint.
66. The claimant was caused distress and felt “invalidated” by this exchange.
