NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #22

[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 was expected to last 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It is planned that it will resume on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July and then there will be 2 days of submissions from counsel meaning that the hearing will end on 30 July.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February.

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

However, as a result of problems with the livestreaming, apparently caused by a very large number of observers, remote public access to the hearing was suspended on Tuesday 11 February. It was suggested that it might be reinstated at some point but don't count on it.

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
Thread 8: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271511-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-8
Thread 9: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271596-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-9
Thread 10: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271723-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-10
Thread 11: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272046-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-11
Thread 12: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272276-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-12
Thread 13: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272398-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-13
Thread 14: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272939-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-14
Thread 15: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273119-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-15
Thread 16: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273636-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-16
Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273827-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-17
Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274332-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-18
Thread 19: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274571-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-19
Thread 20: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5275782-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-20
Thread 21: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5276925-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-21

Have a read of the list of tribunal claims and then you’ll see what I’m on about??

but the claim against DU is that just by being male in the female CR was enough to create a “hostile” environment for SP = harassment

Apologies if you have done so already, but is there anything you can quote that demonstrates that they are specifically including DU in this?

I think DU is unreasonable in many ways, but I can't see how DU could reasonably be expected to know that NHS Fife's changing room policy is wrong.

Bottom line is, it's a man with fantastical protected .
beliefs , that have no basis in reality.
A man who appears to have missed basic biology lessons throughout school and five years of medical training, now expensively employed by the NHS.
A man who does not understand the basic principles of consent.
We do still have a culture of putting medics on pedestals, which encourages a false sense of entitlement and this needs to be recognised and stopped.

I pasted a summary of SP’s tribunal claims near the very start of thread 17 (?). DU has 2 claims made against him personally. NHS Fife have maybe 13 or so claims against them. NC is applying to add Kate Searle as a third (personal) respondent. It’s a big deal as there are potentially financial liabilities. Maya Forstater was awarded £100k….

Given that DU's beliefs don't really make sense, I'm not surprised you are struggling!

The panel don't need to consider if his belief is protected to decide if he is allowed in the women's changing room. His belief cannot give him that right regardless of whether it is protected.

The simple question for the panel is whether DU should have been in the changing room. That's it. Forget about the beliefs. They aren't relevant to deciding that question. The panel may disagree with me, of course, but I really don't think they need to consider the status of DU's beliefs.

DU stated he didn't seek clarification about the policy before using the female changing room. So NHS fife's policy is wrong but he also admitted he used the female changing room without having any consideration for the policy or law, or indeed the needs or rights or feelings of his colleagues.

It was all just me me me. Not great in a doctor.

For a doctor to be struck off needs a bit more than merely publishing a belief unacceptable to the medical establishment. If someone is using their position as a doctor to promote their personal opinion on a matter of medical importance this engages their professional responsibilities. There would be no problem if they didn't identify themselves as a doctor & expressed antivax views.

In the Upton case I am uncertain whether when the GMC get round to considering his case he can be sanctioned on the evidence given so far at the ET. IANAL but AIUI evidence given at the ET is under absolute privilege a bit like an MP cannot be in contempt of court for naming someone where the courts have imposed an anonymity order. So I'm not sure that he can be struck off for expressing his bonkers GI views at the ET. I'm not even sure that the evidence can even be considered as such.

On the other hand now that he is a Celebrity Dr Ladyboy if he were to double down on his stance by creating a Celebrity Dr Ladyboy website where he promoted his GI opinions as fact then he could be sanctioned. Alternatively if outside the courtroom he repeats his statements when a patient asks for a female doctor he would pretend that he was female in order to examine her then I think that this would amount to serious professional misconduct & he would be struck off.

I hope someone is monitoring / supervising his interactions with female patients.

Thanks!

The implication is that:

• SP probably proves harassment against DU based on the Workplace Regs alone and DU’s lack of GRC. And NHS Fife’s lack of case by case assessment.
• DU should take NHS Fife’s to tribunal for discriminating against them and having failed to do an assessment that allowed access to the female CR as per protected beliefs
• And going forward NHS Fife write an assessment that allows self ID TW in the female CR - assuming that there’s nothing in the ET findings that makes that difficult. So another Tribunal will need to test reasonableness of policy - unless the EHRC involvement clarifies this about single sex spaces?
• Going forward another case will need to be brought about work CRs by someone else for a TW with a GRC to test that legally?

Honestly what an expensive mess. All because the lawmakers bodged it in the first instance. Disgraceful waste of public money. I’ll be livid if the NHS Settle DU’s share if the ET finds in favour of SP

This is the bit that worries me. We all heard the doctor say they would provide single sex care until or if a patient objected to him providing it.

You are right.

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Redacted-Peggie-Case-Management-Order-06.01.2025.pdf

This has a summary of the 'pleadings' on page 2.

IANAL, but I still think this only makes sense if it wasn't reasonable for Upton to assume that he could use the women's changing room.

NHS Fife's policy isn't wrong but nonexistent. He didn't check the policy he just started using the female CR. He then informed his supervisor who again didn't check the policy. Nobody it seems checked the policy until SP complained to ED about having a man in the female CR. ED couldn't find the policy but apparently relied on a verbal assurance from IB that men dressed as women were entitled to use the female CR. I'm amazed that ED didn't at the very least want to cover her backside by getting confirmation in an email.

SP probably proves harassment against DU based on the Workplace Regs alone and DU’s lack of GRC. And NHS Fife’s lack of case by case assessment.

I hope so, yes.

DU should take NHS Fife’s to tribunal for discriminating against them and having failed to do an assessment that allowed access to the female CR as per protected beliefs

I would expect him to lose if he tried that. The comparator should be a man who does not believe he is a woman but wants access to the female CR. Such a man would not be allowed access, so it is not discrimination against DU to refuse him access, notwithstanding his protected beliefs.

And going forward NHS Fife write an assessment that allows self ID TW in the female CR - assuming that there’s nothing in the ET findings that makes that difficult. So another Tribunal will need to test reasonableness of policy - unless the EHRC involvement clarifies this about single sex spaces?

NHS Fife might try that, but if it is clear from this tribunal that the Workplace Regulations mean what they say such a move would be unlawful. In that situation there would be no need for any future tribunal to consider reasonableness.

Going forward another case will need to be brought about work CRs by someone else for a TW with a GRC to test that legally?

Depends on the ruling in this case. As DU doesn't have a GRC, this tribunal doesn't need to consider that situation and could decide to ignore it, but equally they could rule that DU shouldn't be allowed in the female CR even if he did have a GRC. The fact he is refusing to say one way or the other may push the tribunal into coming up with a ruling on this point.

It's not reasonable for any male to assume that they can use a female CR just because they grow their hair & put on a dress. There was no NHS Fife policy document & even if there had been that could not absolve Upton of responsibility. Voyeurism & indecent exposure are crimes & it doesn't matter that Fife NHS facilitate them they are still crimes. What would have been the response if SP had called the police & reported a man in the female CR?

Yes, it’s surprising ED didn’t ask IB to confirm in an email.

Also, given ED’s seniority and professional level, if I was her manager I’d have expected her to do something to check what she was told, (e.g. ask for the source of the info) because it was contentious, and IB was obviously inexperienced. She didn’t behave as a senior professional person normally would.

I don't think that is clear.

Had Dr Upton had a GRC, pending the result of the Supreme Court case, he might have a right to use the changing room.

Simply being in sight of a woman getting changed, or getting changed, is not evidence in itself of voyeurism or indecent exposure.

One of the many many many things confusing me is: does DrU claim to be a woman full stop, or a transwoman?

Is he claiming that because, according to his idiosyncratic take on biology, he is a woman, full stop, no prefixes, just a woman, he had every right to be in the women's CR, and therefore the employer's policy on transgender people using single sex spaces was neither here nor there.
(The fact that he later checked it was OK contradicts this.)

But he also claims to be a transwoman when he accuses SP of objecting to his presence because he is trans. He also wanted anonymity because he didn't want to be widely exposed as trans - although elsewhere he said several colleagues and patients had already 'misgendered' him on occasions, so clearly it was obvious to some? many? people that he was a transwoman.

If he was using the women's CR because TWAW and the employer said he could, that's one thing.

If he was using the women's CR because he's just a woman like SP or you or me, and so has every right to use it, that's something else - something that most people would find unreasonable.

Which is he claiming to be? or is he switching between the two, as it suits his case...

Now my head is melting!

Pure cakeism - whichever argument suits the moment.

He believes that trans women are women, so he is both. From his perspective (or at least, what he is trying to convince us is his perspective), it is the same as saying red headed women are women.

That's it.

He didn't have a GRC so we can forget about that. He has merely grown his hair put on makeup & dressed as a woman. He has not had any medical or surgical intervention. He is in all regards a male notwithstanding his bonkers belief that he is a biological female.

Indecent exposure is committed by deliberately exposing one's genitals in order to cause another person alarm or distress. If you expose your genitals but don't intend to cause alarm e.g. you get a sexual thrill from it or because you believe that you have a female penis you could be charged with the more serious offence of outraging public decency.

One of the key elements of an offence of voyeurism is that it should be non-consensual. If you are undressing in your bedroom & someone peers in your window that's pretty clear cut but if you are undressing in what you think is a female CR then you are not consenting to a man viewing you even if they have disguised themselves as a woman in order to access the CR.

She did try to check - both policy and speaking to other senior colleagues. From this we can infer that she had doubts about IB’s advice

That’s not part of the claim anyway… it’s more like does the presence of a male in the female CR create an intimidating or hostile environment? If so then it’s harassment which is SP’s ET claim

Interesting. But the Case Management notes linked above confirm that none of that is in the mix. Which is useful - it’s just about being male (legally and biologically) in a female space causing harassment

prh47bridge : Going forward another case will need to be brought about work CRs by someone else for a TW with a GRC to test that legally?
Depends on the ruling in this case. As DU doesn't have a GRC, this tribunal doesn't need to consider that situation and could decide to ignore it, but equally they could rule that DU shouldn't be allowed in the female CR even if he did have a GRC. The fact he is refusing to say one way or the other may push the tribunal into coming up with a ruling on this point.

A GRC is officially secret or confidential. There are big penalties for revealing information acquired in an official capacity.