NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #23

[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
Thread 22: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5280174-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-22

“all staff can use the toilet facilities that align with their gender identity where appropriate facilities are available, including gender neutral/individual spaces".

I read that policy as meaning people can use toilets that correspond to their gender identity if there are any, otherwise they can't. So if they're male and there's an individual single-use gender neutral toilet available then they can use it, otherwise they use the gents. If they're male and identify as male then they can use the gents or any gender-neutral facilities.

Their EQIA says “as a matter of law, access to facilities on the basis of gender identity makes those facilities mixed-sex rather than single-sex facilities" (true AFAIK) and they will “mitigate this risk by providing single-occupancy toilet facilities throughout our estate, alongside more open and/or mixed options"."

Providing a slew of mixed-sex toilets and a few single-occupancy toilets for the vast majority of women who don't want to share with men isn't going to cut it. Surely they mean "open single-sex options"? Otherwise they seem to be saying that they know their policy is illegal. Good luck Edinburgh!

@KnottyAuty I'm happy to join in. Given that the key thing is the publicity at the end might it be a good idea to get Sex Matters involved? Their publicity people seem pretty hot

OhBuggerandArse · Yesterday 22:55

Scottish Tories making hay

It's good to learn that EHRC have demanded a meeting with the NHS Fife Health Board, as their letter has fallen on deaf ears, so to speak.

@KnottyAuty has started a new thread for this:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5291237-nhs-policy-audit-working-party

Hop over and join us!

The tide is turning? Not yet in the Government's eyes:

I signed the Repeal the Gender Recognition Act petition and have just had this response.

The Government has no plans to repeal the Gender Recognition Act (2004).

The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad.

This Government is proud of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 and the rights it affords to transgender people in this country.

The GRA has operated for 20 years and has allowed trans people to be recognised in law. The Act enables trans people to live, work and die in their acquired gender, ensuring that trans people can live with dignity and respect.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation, with appropriate checks and balances that reflect the seriousness of changing a person’s legal sex. With multiple checks, medical evidence, legal declarations and clearances, the process is extremely rigorous.

The Equality Act 2010 sets out that providers have the right to restrict use of services on the basis of sex and gender reassignment in certain circumstances where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This includes those with Gender Recognition Certificates. The Government is proud of the Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women, and we will continue to support the use of its single-sex exceptions by providers.

In our manifesto, we committed to modernising gender recognition law whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We believe this strikes the right balance. We will also uphold the Equality Act and its provisions on single-sex exceptions. This Government is steadfast in its dedication to protecting all its citizens irrespective of their sex, gender, or any other characteristic.

Cabinet Office

Perhaps losing a few more cases and some six figure settlements will concentrate their minds further.

@Bannedontherun - You need to talk to a barrister who specialises in this area for a proper answer! My tentative view is that I'm not sure an ultra vires argument works. Employers have quite wide implied powers over staff. Powers over service users are, of course, more limited. In particular, a public body has far less ability to refuse to provide a service to an individual than a private service provider. However, there is clearly potential conflict between such policies and both the Equality Act (protected beliefs) and your rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the EHRC. A public body cannot withdraw services from an individual or refuse to employ someone simply because they use or express gender critical beliefs. However, they may be able to do so if the expression of that belief is offensive.

Overall, I think that such policies may be susceptible to judicial review but I would want to talk to a barrister who specialises in this area of law before taking any action.

@prh47bridge Thanks for responding I agree regarding not being abusive or harassing people, I am going to look in to this further and contact sex matters and legal feminists.

Not a very good one it seems... A bit like Dr Upton's "I'm a biological woman" stance. It's mad to me that the medical profession has been captured like this. The arts, I can understand as they are all a bit prone to liking the latest fad and not questioning it, but to deny genetics and science??? Make it make sense.

........A public body cannot withdraw services from an individual or refuse to employ someone simply because they use or express gender critical beliefs. However, they may be able to do so if the expression of that belief is offensive.

This is the Upton and Transactivists get out clause. They deem that calling them a man is offensive. As we see with Sandie Peggie - she didn't say anything that a non captured person would have taken offense at - as she said You're a man is the truth.

That's been a get-out clause but it might not work much longer. Dr Upton made it clear in court that there was no expression of Sandie Peggie's legitimate beliefs and concerns that Upton would have found acceptable.

And as for what would happen if a patient expressed similar beliefs (like Sandie Peggie's) to Dr Upton.... Dr Upton seems to have done Uptonself up like a kipper.

I think the outcome of this case and the Supreme Court one will be a deciding factor re a judicial review.

Am I right in thinking that the penultimate paragraph of the Cabinet Office letter is so ambiguous as to be meaningless? I cannot conclude from this whether holders of a "female" GRC can be excluded from female single sex spaces or not.

However, they may be able to do so if the expression of that belief is offensive.

the dictionary definitions of 'offensive' show that it can be a perception or an action - 'I find that really offensive' vs 'Rebel forces have gone on the offensive'.

So obviously 'You are a man' can be simultaneously offensive to the receiver but not offensive in the mind of the transmitter, to whom it is just a fact.

I feel it could be offensive as well as factual, though, e.g. if I walked up to some bloke on the train who was sitting there, minding his own business, quietly reading a book and trying [obviously unsuccessfully] to pass as a woman, and out of the blue said loudly 'You are a man!' .
100% factual, but I would accept that it would be offensive in that context.

But to say 'You are a man' to a male person in a female-designated single space like a changing room isn't the same as saying it to the trans chap on the train, is it? The receiver hears it as offensive, but it isn't being transmitted as a random unprovoked remark intended to offend in that context.

As Peregrina say, 'offensiveness' shouldn't be the get-out clause the TRAs think it is in cases like SP's.

Not sure if brought up but Naomi Cunningham is currently involved in another ET - Newman v Met Police re GC beliefs. The Met asked for anonymity for one of the witnesses but this was declined yesterday.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/met-police-tribunal-anonymity-bid-rejected/

All these public bodies want anonymity, don't they. Yet still insist they're in the right 🙄

Thank goodness the courts are having none of it and are determined to uphold the principle of justice being open.

MarieDeGournay · Today 11:30

Thanks, that's a neat analogy.

Justme56 · Today 11:35

Not sure if brought up but Naomi Cunningham is currently involved in another ET - Newman v Met Police re GC beliefs. The Met asked for anonymity for one of the witnesses but this was declined yesterday.

Good news! There's nothing like a bit of sunlight to send the cockroaches scuttling.

Was it the police witness they wanted anonymity for?

Worth still trying to get more signatures though? The Darlington case might result in more support for repeal. Wonder what the government would say if it got to 100000.

Not sure. I gather TT will start tweeting this pm as it gets underway. It’s actually quite funny that they asked for anonymity regarding an event promoting Trans Day of Visibility.

Which is where the reasonableness test comes in under the EA… it recognises that someone might feel harassed but asks if they were reasonable to feel that way. By admitting DU would accept any manifestation of SP’s belief looks unreasonable if DU expects free expression of their beliefs… but hey is that how a lawyer will see it?

gah of course that should say “By admitting DU wouldn’t accept any manifestation of SP’s belief that looks unreasonable”

DU is clearly unreasonable.

There is no right not to be offended. The test is higher than that. If you refer to DU as a man in a situation where it is not relevant and your only reason for doing so is to upset him, that is offensive. Referring to him as a man in a situation where it is relevant and necessary to get your point across is not offensive, no matter how much distress it causes him. (Massive oversimplification, but hopefully makes the point)

Well, that's how Sandoe Peggie's lawyer sees it. We have to wait and see if the tribunal judge sees it the same way because that will have a big effect on how lawyers see it in future.

I think that getting the permission agreed to use male pronouns etc was key to laying the groundwork for this. On the basis the court already ruled it was ok for the hearing is hopefully a good sign for the interpretation of Sandies words in the CR