A bit of useful background from thread #7:
KnottyAuty · 08/02/2025 15:55
In honour of thread 7 here’s some homework I thought I better do before Tribunal Week 2 now that they have stopped discussing feelings and are getting on to actual useful legal stuff.
Hopefully I have got this summary right - this is the basis of the legal claim by Sandie Pegg (SP) to the Employment Tribunal:
SP (claimant) is the one who has brought the case to the Employment Tribunal (ET) – naming NHS Fife as Respondent 1 (R1) and Dr Upton as Respondent 2 (R2).
She claims against Dr U personally
Harassment under EA for being a biological male in the female only CR
Whistleblowing – her challenge to Dr U in the CR was a “protected disclosure” that led to “detriments” – Dr U punishing her via formal complaints of bullying and harassment etc.
She claims against NHS Fife:
Harassment under the EA regarding “protected beliefs” – citing a list of 12 timeline events:
The 3 encounters with Dr U in the CR between Aug & Dec 2023
Being put on special leave from 30/12/23
Being suspended on 4/1/24
Beginning a disciplinary investigation based on Dr U’s complaint
Continuing SP’s suspension on 2/2/24
Sought to persuade SP to return to work not at Vic Hospital 7/3/24
Refused to guarantee SP access to a female only CR 7/3/24
Extending SP’s suspension pending agreement on shifts 7/3/24
Requiring SP return to work on day shifts in order to be supervised (due to Dr U’s allegations on concern about patient care) 7/3/24
Informing SP of an allegation and investigation about patient care 28/3/24
Failing to progress the disciplinary investigation promptly
Prohibiting SP from discussing these legal matters/issues at work.
Harassment under EA as in 2a for letting Dr U use the female CR and permitting other staff to use a CR that aligns with their gender identity
Victimisation (which I think is the indirect harassment bit?) similar to 3a but with 3 additional “detriments” including being informed of alleged bullying and unwanted behaviours to a colleague, as well as being asked to work day shifts in place of nights.
Whistleblowing complaint with similar detriments as the victimisation claim in 3c
The NHS/Dr U team have responded to accept that the events listed in the claim happened but the don’t accept the claims of harassment and say that they only allow staff to use CRs based on their gender identity on a case-by-case basis (ie my words: not just any old Tom Dick or Harry can march into the ladies)
The NHS/Dr U allege it was SP who behaved inappropriately and that what she said was not a “protected disclosure” or a “protected act” so the subsequent events were not “detriments” to her (again my words – under the law she wouldn’t qualify for protection against victimisation or whistleblowing)
The NHS/Dr U confirmed that they would not rely on the “all reasonable steps” defence under the EA regarding Dr U’s conduct – saying this claim is vexatious and should not be pursued.
(Sorry the MN text editor has removed my original numbering so there will be some odd references which you can hopefully infer)