NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #5

[nauticant]

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 January 2025 and is expected to continue for 2 weeks. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on 6 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely can be obtained by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access.

The hearing is being live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr. This also has threadreaderapp archives of live-tweeting of the sessions of the hearing for those who can't follow on Twitter, for example: archive.is/xkSxy.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse

Thread 2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2

Thread 3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268347-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-3

Thread 4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268942-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-4

10.37am

It sounds like Peggy's approach was more personal than necessary, shifting focus from the policy to the individual. And targeting the individual. Whether it's bigotry, fear, or something else, her framing of the question about chromosomes could reveal deeper biases.

I dont know if she was intentionally being confrontational, or it could it have been an emotional reaction to the situation?.

Why thank you.

It could be a MN secret wink, "how would you describe this colour?!...."

Peggie stated that she didn't ask any questions about chromosomes.

I reckon they do really get it 😉

It's refreshing to read them correctly 'sexing' the doctor.

She denies she said it.

But reading it as written above it comes across even in DU testimony as in response to DU repetitively staying they're not a man. I find it easy to believe she was trying to say, "but biologically..."

If it happened at all

10.35. Five minutes for the message to get through and half an hour for JR to decide how to spin the announcement.

Hello there, would you be kind and spell Mrs Peggie's name correctly, please. I'm sure your misspell was an accident, of course.

I didn't see the hearing, so could someone please tell me why there's speculation Dr Upton won't show tomorrow? That would be really bad for the respondents! The personal confrontation thing is tricky. If Dr Upton was just a male without a feminine gender then if you challenged him for being in the changing room, this wouldn't be harassment (and his behaviour in the changing room would be deeply inappropriate.) But because he's a male with a feminine gender, it can then be argued that the targeting of him is because he is trans (which is a protected characteristic). It does strike me as odd that it's justifiable to challenge a male in female only spaces (and that would arguably be voyeurism/harassment of women) but if the same male has announced he has a feminine mental state then it's bullying and bigotry to confront him. It's all such a mess, which would be solved by having changing rooms separated by sex with gender neutral facilities provided as well.

Yes indeed. The contrast is stark, isn't it? And also, it feels like he's cosplaying a v stereotypical idea of a weak, feeble ( was going to say woman, but it's more like a teenage girl), idea of feminity, which is hugely insulting to all women. I imagine him collapsing onto a fainting couch, having to be revived by smelling salts...

Each time he reported how he'd put her in her place by stating, "as a woman...." Was like nails on a blackboard to me.

It’s all a bit Stan, but not funny in real life.

I’m sure Sandie Peggie wasn’t rude to Dr Upton. But even if she was, it’s irrelevant. The key point here is that the health board acted illegally in allowing a male person into a female changing room. They then disciplined the woman who protested about it. I don’t see how a tribunal could possibly find in the board’s favour.

I will say 10.23

Oi!

I baggsied that already (at 19:12, don't you know!)

@WeMeetInFairIthilien oh no! Ok then 10.43

But it really makes me cross that women are expected to justify their reasons for not wanting men in the women's facilities, by disclosing very personal information like this, or history of assault, or their religious beliefs. Does it make a woman's discomfort with men in their changing room any less valid if none of these reasons apply to her?

Agree, this absolutely enrages me. Women should not have to do this, we should have to explain, justify, be expected to detail trauma or plead for single sex facilities. Why are we expected to? Why is our No, we don't want to share spaces with men, any men however they identify not enough? Why? Men do not have to this, it's out and out misogyny, sexism and discrimination.

Michael Foran is worth a follow on twitter. He says that:

Dr Upton has said that the manager was not aware of any policies in relation to toilet or changing room use but because of the female identity, Upton should use the women’s. The relevant rules here aren’t policies they are the rules contained in the Workplace Regulations 1992.

These regulations are statutory, an incorporation of EU law and until 01 Jan 2024 took priority over domestic legislation. Now they are assimilated EU law and all legislation should, so far as possible, be interpreted compatibly with them.

The relevant rule in Workplace (Health, Safety, and Wellbeing) Regulations 1992 are a strict requirement to provide male and female changing areas where employment requires one to change clothing. NHS policies incompatible with these regulations are unlawful.

This is different from Schedule 3 of the Equality Act - provision of separate sex services to the public. The Schedule 3 exceptions don’t apply in the workplace. They are permissible but not mandatory. The 1992 regs are mandatory - there is [no scope] for justification for breach.

That's interesting ItsAllGoingToBeFine.

Scotland's People should be sued next. The birth register states that the dr is male and also that he married Zoe Davies in Cupar in 2021. This information is in the public domain available free to anyone via https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/

That's interesting - one thing that's struck me all week we've not actually heard anything on what the law is yet.

Exactly. And if the board are clearly breaking the law, why does there need to be any further argument? The tribunal should find against the board in this basis alone. Why the board’s own lawyers didn’t tell them this I have no idea

Operation 'let them speak'.

I know it's really difficult and unfortunate that Mrs Peggie's family have to go through this but it should certainly peak a whole new group of people.

It's all such a mess, which would be solved by having changing rooms separated by sex with gender neutral facilities provided as well.

Exactly. But then there would be no validation for TW.

Could you post a screenshot, please. I'm not on X. I'm really happy that Sandie and her family will be able to see, through this unlikely channel, just how much support is out there for her.

The law will be set out in NC written arguments. Assume JR will argue on lines of EQA - will be examined and decided on in the final judgement.