NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #24

[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
Thread 23: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5285690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-23

So the protected characteristic of gender reassignment only applies to discrimination based on that characteristic. However, even with gender reassignment the person is still a biological male, therefore that protection does not extend to single sex areas.

Is that interpretation correct in your view?

I'm just a bit confused about it TBH.

Yes that's the SC ruling. A single sex space/service/requirement is single sex, based on birth sex. Reassigned gender does not replace or override sex.

If a transwoman applies for an ordinary job and is refused for being trans, that's illegal discrimination on the basis of having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

If a transwoman applies for an ordinary job and is refused because the employer thinks she's a woman (and the employer is a sexist who thinks women are no good at whatever the job is), that's illegal discrimination on the basis of being perceived to have the protected characteristic of (female) sex.

If a transwoman applies for a job that has a genuine occupational requirement for the holder to be a woman (such as, to pick a totally random example, the head of a rape crisis centre), then a refusal on the basis of sex is legal.

If a changing room, support group or whatever is single sex, then by defintion it excludes trans people who are not that sex. A women's service excludes transwomen, a men's one excludes transmen.

That is brilliantly clear! Thank you!

So on this basis there is nothing to stop the guides including anyone who identifies as female, as long as ‘identifying as female’ can include anyone?

Using a different protected characteristic can help clarify the logic of the line between characteristics.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment marital status only applies to discrimination based on that characteristic. If a man has gender reassignment gets married the person is still a biological male, therefore that protection does not allow him to use women's single sex areas.

Not a lawyer but in my opinion, NHS Fife never had a leg to stand on. If Dr Upton had a GRC, they might have a case but he doesn't. He's legally and physically a man. Wearing a dress doesn't give him the right to access women's facilities nor does a made-up NHS transgender policy. The 1992 Workplace Regulations apply as does the Equality Act 2010, with its single-sex exemptions.

Now its an even easier slam dunk for Sandie 😀

show that most people with a particular protected characteristic cannot have the characteristic on which you are discriminating.

I think that would be the point where my hypothetical scenario falls apart - the point where people who believe in gender ideology have to assert that there is no indirect discrimination because most men could identify as a woman.

That is correct. That is exactly what the Supreme Court decided. If you are a biological male, it doesn't matter whether you have a GRC or have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in any other way, you are still a biological male and therefore can be excluded from single sex provision for women.

Nice one!

I agree.

@NoBinturongsHereMate Thanks for that. I've taken a screenshot for any future discussions outside of here!

But if he did have a GRC, how would they practically go about communicating that they think he is male so should use the women’s toilet’s?

All his ID including tax info will describe him as female.

But if he did have a GRC, how would they practically go about communicating that they think he is male so should use the women’s toilet’s? All his ID including tax info will describe him as female.

Wrong burden of proof. As the person wanting to get the limited service or admittance, it's up to you to prove you're eligable.

It's not up to a shopkeeper to prove a customer is underage for buying alcohol. If the shopkeeper challenges a customer, the customer has to prove they're old enough.

Same here. If Upton wants to be permitted access to female facilities, Upton needs to prove Upton is female. And obviously legal ID isn't sufficient, as it doesn't necessarily indicate sex.

But again, that's Upton's problem.

A group for women and red-haired men is clearly trying to combine two unrelated groups. That wouldn't work. But a group for anyone of either sex who identifies as a woman is very different. There is a clear shared characteristic here.

Yes, most women identify as female and most men don't, but you aren't going to check up on them. You are going to admit any man who turns up and says they identify as female, and refuse entry to any woman who turns up and says they identify as male.

If you start checking up on them to ensure they are living as a woman, etc. it becomes more problematic as you may then be discriminating on the basis of gender reassignment. But simply asking them to say some magic words to get entry (in this case "I identify as a woman") is hardly onerous. So no, the courts would not find that is sex discrimination.

Agree.

I think it was the whole:
A: “do they have a GRC?”
B: “how can we tell?”
C: “I know, but I’m not allowed to tell you”

….that prompted the Scottish Govts barrister to ask for an early lunchbreak so she could try to draw up a flowchart about how it works.

But in practice, you are NHS Fife HR and you have a new employee, who you think is male. All their ID says they are female. What do you do? What is the conversation?

Ooh, remember the Red Headed League of Sherlock Holmes? Nothing good came of it, if I remember correctly.

As nothing good comes from all this contemporary nonsense either. Imagine a Conan Doyle mystery featuring Furries.

Does this render section 3 para 28 of EA redundant? The bit about excluding people with pc of GR when proportionate means etc?

If you have good reason to believe they are male, you tell them that you will need evidence that they are female if they want to use the female facilities.

But what would that be? Normal ID would be passport/driving licence. Maybe a doctor could certify sex, but that isn’t a standard thing for an employer to request. If you are just somebody working in HR this doesn’t seem easy.

No. Schedule 3 paragraph 28 means goes beyond simply saying you can exclude trans women from from single sex services for women. It covers any discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment by single sex service providers as long as the discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Obviously the main form of discrimination will be refusing to allow trans women to access single sex services for women, but it covers any other discrimination you can justify in relation to the service.

That is the employee's problem, not yours. Provided you reasonably believe the employee is male, you can exclude them from female-only spaces. If they want access, they have to prove to you that they are female.

The default HR position will be to assume that someone is telling the truth when they apply for a job. If you lie on your CV regarding qualifications you can be fired & prosecuted. The same would apply if you lied about your biological sex.

You write it into your contracts and disciplinary policy that every employee is asked for their biological sex/sex at birth and that it is gross misconduct to lie about it. Justification when there are single sex changing rooms is evident. Noting that only balance of probabilities is required for disciplinary action. You don't ask whether they have a GRC because you don't need to know.