NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #8

[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 February 2025 and is expected to continue for 2 weeks. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on Thursday 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

Thread 5: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269149-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-5

Thread 6: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269635-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-6

Thread 7: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5270365-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-7

JR objects once again

NC - a series of yes or no questions. Treat as a guessing game.

You haven't told the tribunal about medical treatment you may have had?

It's not medical treatment that makes ...

JR -= I object. If this is a line of qu's about Rs appearance, it's irrelevant and demeaning.

What is the difference between you and pete? Exactly!

I think somehow we're going to see NC ask Upton to put himself into Sandie Peggie's shoes and he's not going to be able to do it.

JR objecting to q's about DU appearance.

JR not happy about establishment of biological facts

Did JR really say that Pete could be a trans man and perfectly entitled to use the female changing room 🙈

she’s a TERF

See - the Judge is telling him how to respond to Q's - which is what his Counsel should have advised him to do.

Incidentally, I've sat in on a lot of ET's and I've never heard Counsel or Respondent Solicitors interrupt the opposite party at all during witness evidence

YES JR appearance is irrelevant and perception is irrelevant only ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL SEX IS RELEVANT

But DU seems to enjoy it. Funny that.

We're not allowed to know if Dr U is an intact male or not.

How can it not be relevant what SP perceived?

JR - if this questioning is going to be about DrU's appearance then it's not relevant - I object!

Yes but not in the way she means . . .

It's really not about appearance

JR - the only relevant perception is that of the claimant. I'm disappointed that NC hasn't reflected on case manager orderin which you asked about C to reflect if necessary or appropriate to use terminology and impact on respondent

JR very quick to interrupt when NC indicates going to start on a line of questions about appearance.

If someone is a man I assume they are intact. Why wouldn't I?

JR almost hissing

NC - the 2nd r says although he agrees Pete shouldn't be in there, he says that he IS entitled to be there because he's a transwoman.

Claimant says as a transwoman, he's a man, both in reality and in ....

JR - 2nd Respondent had persmission to be in women's CR. Heart of this case is about what's in the list of issues, whether or not claimant was harassed. Questions my opp is about to ask are not relevant are demeaning and hurtful.

JR - Qs are demeaning and hurtful

If someone is a man I assume they are intact. Why wouldn't I?

This.

JR: The questions my opponent are ABOUT TO ASK are not relevant and are demeaning and unhelpful

!!

NC - an employer is not entitled to give an employee permission to harass. What matters is what he did, and what hsi purpose or intention was.

Is NC being very clever by constantly getting to the point that everyone must be expecting the coup de grace but she doesn't apply it?

Circling back to the 'plumber in the CR' thing, the difference is that a male who goes in there to fix something will knock on the door before announcing his presence and probably also put up a sign outside saying workmen present or similar.

Whereas if the exact same man says the magic words - bingo. He doesn’t need to say or do any of those things. According to DU.

Questions that get to the heart of the matter are hurtful, m'lord