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

As a retired doctor I am ashamed to admit that there are enough doctors around who will do anything for money. The Webberleys were struck off & fined for setting up a dodgy online gender clinic prescribing by hormones & puberty blockers.

His alleged behaviour was also more outrageous than that of Upton. He discussed his sex life & attempts to get his girlfriend pregnant. He also walked around the changing room in his boxers with his penis on show.

From previous thread:

It is the Darlington Nurses’ barrister (not the Trust’s barrister - no idea who that is) who has a wider set of views, that I am concerned should be brought into play.

e.g. CLC are opposed to pre-marital sex. This is irrelevant to the Nurses’ case. But Rose has stated he is trying to get his girlfriend pregnant (so not taking female hormones), so at odds with the Nurses’ barrister’s views on pre-marital sex.

Their barrister's views are irrelevant. I doubt their views on pre-marital sex will feature in the hearings at all. The tribunal will not be interested as it isn't relevant. It will not help the Trust if they bring this up and could harm their case by making them look unreasonable.

Also from previous thread:

Why is ok for the NHS Trust to pay the legal bills for one side and not for the other if they are supposed to treat all employees equally?

Also does this not make the Trust biased against one set of employees.

We don't know for certain that they are doing so, but SP is suing the Trust and Upton. The Trust and Upton are therefore on the same side, so there is no issue with the Trust paying Upton's fees. There is no way they would pay SP's fees as she is suing them. Employers are not required to fund employees who want to take legal action against them. They may be biased against one set of employees, but this doesn't prove it.

Well done your husband for not being an abuser of old ladies. Shame he had to go along with it to pass, but hopefully in real life he'd stick up for the little old lady!

It's very obvious coercive control - in a relationship this shit is illegal, why it's somehow fine for the NHS to abuse patients via coercive control at the behest of obvious males with lady feelings I don't know.

Why are the darlington nurses going with CLC in particular?

I don't know, I think within the tribunal so far there has been evidence that Upton's allegations of professional misconduct may have been false. If this is true, surely they are no longer on the same side as Upton may have breached professional conduct?

NHS fife appear to be thick as a plank of wood given they didn't properly investigate the paper thin, potentially malicious and career ending, allegations of professional misconduct which it seems Upton significantly rowed back on during testimony. Trans teflon, I'm assuming. However, we are where we are.

If they now have some evidence that Upton's allegations are backed by thin air, surely they have a responsibility to SP and to pay for Upton is defending and contributing to harassment of a colleague? I think it gets very murky at this point.

Good luck to JR and colleagues sorting all this out.

I'm assuming NC and colleagues will be all over considering the illegality of this, including taxpayers money being used to fund an employee who does not have any evidence for his allegations and may be acting against policy and maliciously.

I think at the time they were having the problems of being dismissed and gaslit by the NHS, it was the only option. Their union was on the side of the bloke who wants to invade unconsenting women's spaces.

IIRC I saw an interview where one of the nurses has a strong Christian faith so was aware of this group, contacted them and they offered to help. Being gaslit and coercively controlled at work and told men can be women on their say so, and have the right to intimidate women in spaces labelled single sex must be soul destroying so I'm not surprised they took the first offer they got to help.

As usual, no one else stepped up.

Look who's running to be rector of Dundee uni

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-greens-msp-who-believes-34763990?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Such womanly behaviour. Not.

Whenever I hear Nuala McGovern fawning over whichever right thinking guest she has on Woman's Hour I can't help but think back to the way she spoke to Bethany, one of the Darlington nurses, when she was interviewing her. I wonder if she'd be quite so confident in her contempt now, if this is indeed the same family.

Ah, Maggie PersonPerson.

From a legal perspective, SP is suing NHS Fife and DU. They are therefore joint defendants in this case and clearly on the same side. They can, of course, run different defences if they wish. However, they have chosen to mount a joint defence. Cutting DU loose and running a different case is unlikely to help them at this stage. And there is no illegality involved. If the defendants choose to run a joint case, it is up to them to decide how to split the cost between them. The incremental cost of defending Upton will be minimal, so there is probably little point in splitting costs. However, this is all speculation. We don't know if NHS Fife is picking up the whole bill or if Upton's insurers are paying some of it.

Nitter link for comments - I predict an attempt to settle
https://nitter.net/SorelleArduino/status/1896480970410512588

I have just randomly stumbled across the following Requirements for public sector bodies (in the course of my actual job, you understand).

• Publish Equality Information, at least annually
• show how they are meeting the Public Sector Equality Duty.
• Including training, data on employees and service users to demonstrate compliance.
• Set and Publish Equality Objectives, at least every four years, with specific and measurable equality objectives.

Does anyone fancy doing a few freedom of information requests to track how their local health organisations are doing with these?

I think it raises questions about appropriate spending of NHS money. There are rules around what taxpayers money is allowed to be used for. Paying legal costs for someone who has breached NHS policy (made up allegations about a colleague) may not be legal for the trust, and could potentially be challenged in a separate court case I am sure. You're right, it probably won't affect this one and is beyond the ET court's remit.

Yea, it was hypothetical. Part of their inclusivity training.

Agreed. They'd get very short shrift from the judge if they tried to bring in that line of argument. It's totally irrelevant¹ (as well as professionaly offensive to the barrister).

¹ What someone who doesn’t work at the trust, who the nurses hadn't met at the time of the incidents, thinks about a matter completely unconnected with the case. It makes about as much sense as bringing in the Nepalese prime minister's opinion on bat conservation.

Helen W successfully appealed her suspension and was never removed from the register, iirc.

The problem is that Fife believed DU and that SP was in the wrong. SP is suing both Fife and DU and it initially it made sense for Fife to defend themselves and their employee - DU.

It is only as the ET has progressed that it has subsequently come out that Fife potentially failed to fully investigate the situation and NCs cross examination has revealed that things may not appear to be as Fife first thought.

Fife probably didn’t expect SP to go to ET and are now stuck having to defend themselves, DU and potentially KS. This includes funding their defence.

The lesson is always do an investigation as though it might end up at ET.

She lost her licence to practise last year when she didn't revalidate. He was struck off in 2022

https://archive.ph/VwwLe

@Harassedevictee agree and I would add that if they had done any sort of investigation in the first place SP wouldn't have been suspended and they wouldn't have been in anywhere near as bad a mess - even better have an impact assessment before letting the fragrant BU in the changing rooms.

Laws. They are there to help. (generally )

how many respondents can be added? KS would make three, could more be added?

There is no limit as such, but the courts aren't keen on litigants adding respondents as the case proceeds. Anyone added as a respondent must be given a chance to prepare a defence, which can delay the case. It is therefore possible that the tribunal won't allow SP to add KS as a respondent in this case, although that won't stop SP taking separate action against KS if she wants.

Usually it's just the one employer involved. There isn't a limit on the number of respondents who would be, generally speaking, key employees involved in the case. Usually, key players along with the employer might be added, such as Upton. and as we see here, potentially, KS.

Once the ET is underway, however, an application to add another respondent would have to be made under the ET rules of procedure. In short, it's not a done deal that KS will be automatically be added. The applicant's (SP) lawyers would have to set out why they want to add her (KS), or someone else, at this time, and seek approval.