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

Going back to the Tribunal specifics…

There are 2 claims against Dr Upton 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.

The first looked possible but maybe tricky to prove due to blurry Stonewall law until yesterday’s ruling. Having knowingly gone into the CR without permission or seeing policy (that didn’t exist so wasnt available) DU acted independently. It’s going to be pretty difficult for this claim to be dismissed.

The second again looks more likely following yesterday’s ruling. Previously her use of the word man might have been considered transphobic. But after yesterday it’s been returned clearly to a statement of fact related to single sex spaces. So after that they have to prove detriment - which is where the professional conduct complaint comes in. And where DU’s phone may provide evidence which presumably is a bit thin after poor disclosure…

R.e. no balls in the ladies, what about:

• boys with their mum?
• girls with their dad?
• cleaning men?

Personally I don't want some biological women who are "trans men" in women's spaces as that would be threatening i.e. large muscles, balding, a beard....

R.e. black and white I do agree to exclude any trans person without any substantial biological changes from loos of their new "gender".

For others, which is a minority, there is a lot of precedent in terms of i.e. being naked in a public place isn't illegal outright but only if offends public decency. Reasonableness / how reasonable person would react is in a lot of legislation. Possibly some sort of amended GRC process would also work that requires evidence of substantial physical changes.

However, it is entirely valid to want to exclude any biological male from any women's space and that is an option. Any policy needs to be considered, pros and cons, for all protected characteristics and practicality of enforcement.

I do feel strongly though that trans people should not just be pointed to "disabled loos" as disabled people need them!

Or birth certificates.

If a register of GRCs cannot be checked for privacy reasons then possibly Occupational Health will need a new service of cheek swabs available for employees who would like to provide this evidence.

But the WI admit transwomen, and have a membership somewhat in excess of 25 ...

Have I completely misunderstood what you were saying about a group of women not being able to rely on the single sex exception if it admits transwomen?

I don't have a gender identity. I do have a biological sex

Para 221 of the SC judgement seems to address this (though IANAL):

Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status. Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception.

So para 28 is not needed for TW, who would be excluded under para 27, but could be used to exclude TM, if proportionate

I’ve been busy with work today so haven’t caught up with all the threads & messages, but I noticed that Callum on Times Radio this morning referred to Dr Beth Upton as he and talked about him as a man.

We need more people to use the correct pronouns and accurate language.

Thanks - that is clear!

Although I"m still not completely clear, because couldn't that leave trans men with no services? Would the solution to be to provide a separate service?

Both good questions to which I do not have an answer. I just thought it was interesting that the SC specifically made this point in rebuttal to the EHRC saying that a biological reading of sex would make para 28 redundant.

I'm think rape crisis centres would perhaps be somewhere this could be relevant? Maybe it would allow TM to be excluded from group sessions and counselled separately to non-trans women, if that was considered proportionate to avoid possible trauma to non-trans women?

Apoologies. When I wrote that I had overlooked the fact that WI currently admit trans women. However...

If you run an association with fewer than 25 members you are safe as you are not subject to the Equality Act. You can set whatever rules you want around membership.

If you have 25 or more members you are subject to the Equality Act. However, you can rely on the single sex exception if you admit only women.

If you admit women and some men, you cannot rely on the single sex exception, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are discriminating illegally. The question is more complex.

If you are applying different rules for men and women, that is sex discrimination. So, for example, the group suggested in an earlier post that admits all women but only red-headed men would almost certainly lose if a man made a sex discrimination claim against them.

If you are applying the same rules for men and women, it may still be indirect discrimination if the rules are likely to allow most of women to join but prohibit most men (or vice versa). You can still get past this provided the rules are objectively justified, i.e. they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (and, of course, provided they don't bring another protected characteristic into play). What classes as a proportionate means or a legitimate aim is not defined in the legislation and is approached on a case-by-case basis. It depends, in part, on the effects of the discrimination. So, for example, if your rules only exclude men who are unlikely to want to join, the bar for being accepted as objectively justified is much lower than if they exclude 90% of those who would want to join.

In the WI case, since the only qualification for a man to join is that they are willing to say they identify as a woman, and WI don't ask any further questions or investigate to check that the person in question genuinely identifies as a woman, I think WI could argue that, as there is no actual requirement to be trans, any man can join therefore there is no discrimination. It is also possible that the courts would conclude that their rules are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, given that most men are unlikely to want to join the WI.

I may, of course, be wrong. Unless a man brings a sex discrimination case against the WI we will never know. However, my view is that WI might have a problem if they required a man to prove they were a trans woman before admitting them as that could bring the protected characteristic of gender reassignment into play but, as they simply take the man's word for it, I think their current position is defendable.

Boys with mum assuming you mean prepubescent fine.

Girls with Dad eh No they should be in the men's, not appropriate for the Dad to be in the ladies.

Prepubescent children go into the appropriate facility as the parent they are with.

Cleaning men - sometimes it's necessary. Not ideal but...

Now you will note I said Ladies, I deliberately wasn't specific about toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons,

It's probably not that safe for transmen to be in male facilities either, they are still women and could easily be over powered by a male in male facilities if someone was inclined to do so.

Lots of men, particularly older men wouldn't be that happy about transmen in their facilities either.
Some will get a kick out of it others are likely to feel uncomfortable. There is safeguarding for men to - they don't want to be accused of eyeing up a transman either.

When there are male cleaners (in single sex spaces), they usually display a sign so women know to expect them.

You can only discriminate on the grounds of gender reassignment when offering a single sex service if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (an objective justification). You cannot exclude trans men from single sex services for women (or trans women from single sex services for men) unless you can show that there is an objective justification for doing so. Simply saying that you don't want any trans men is not enough.

In most cases, therefore, a single sex service for women must be open to trans men as they are women for Equality Act purposes and most such services will not be able to come up with an objective justification for excluding trans men. However, there may be some instances were such an exclusion is justified. This does not necessarily mean that the service provider must provide a separate service for trans men, although it would be easier to justify the exclusion if they do.

Agreed, and I'd also think they'd be vetted too.

And yes you will have male staff on female hospital wards, but women should have a choice if they are happy to be handled by a male doctor, nurse or auxiliary (old fashioned term can't remember what they are currently called)

And again vice versa some men will not mind being treated by a female others would just rather not, especially if they themselves are feeling vulnerable.

Thanks very much for the rather complex clarification! I think this illustrates very well that, although the SC ruling has clarified the EA (and in my opinion done so in the only coherent way possible) it remains difficult to interpret in some cases.

If you are correct, I do not like the fact that if I wanted to be a member of the WI, I would have to lie to achieve that, and I think it's a weakness of their membership rules that they rely on men's reasonableness. But fortunately for me and for the women of the WI, I do accept that it's reasonable for there to be women-only spaces without the women having to justify excluding me (at least until the matriarchy seizes power, at which point I will object to the exclusion of men from networking opportunities!).

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic surely men have some sort of equivalent of the WI for networking?

One that springs to mind the Masonic being a male organisation (with secrets 🙊) .

It's only if the patriarchy was replaced by the matriarchy that I might have a problem with women-only clubs - and I apologise for letting what I like to think of as my "sense of humour" run away with me.

Edited to add: I object to the Masons for various reasons, including when they exclude women.

It's ok sense of humour is allowed.
I don't know enough about the Masons (or the mixed Eastern Star) to object to them.

@vandelier I agree two questions separating sex and gender.

However, gender must include “I do not have a gender” as an option. I would also include a Freeform box for people to add their gender e.g. non binary,

A lot of the issue is that the GRA uses sex and gender rather than consistently using gender.

Why do we have a gap under public toilet doors? For health and safety
Why do we get rid of the gap when toilets are mixed sex? For privacy
What are we getting rid of by doing that? Health and Safety

I agree everyone really needs to look at the priorities for toilets.

Mixed sex toilets are more dangerous because you have a public space that both sexes can go in that’s private.

Children and girls get led or pushed in to those spaces and assaulted. It can and does happen in disabled toilets in the busiest places (stations, schools) and no one notices.

Because privacy has overridden safety, English secondary schools now only a 5mm gap specified as standard by the Department of Education - even on single sex toilets. So if your child goes to a school who have had the toilets refurbished recently, or a new school - please ask them if this is the case. If it is, tell them to tell everyone always wedge the door open with a bag/blazer if they are feeling ill. Tell them safety is more important especially when you are ill. These toilet designs are not keeping children safe, particularly girls and the medically vulnerable.

It is also possible that the courts would conclude that their rules are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, given that most men are unlikely to want to join the WI.

In this case what would the legitimate aim be?

If the courts think the bar for an objective justification is low, it could be as simple as being inclusive of all women, both biological and and trans. As I say, I cannot say for certain that this would fly but, given that their rules exclude very few men who want to join the WI, if any, that may be enough.

” all women biological and trans”
do you mean women and transmen there ?

because transwomen are not women - because that meaning is biological ?

not been on this thread due to leave so not reading back. can anyone advise on what impact the supreme court ruling could have? If the ruling was after the actions of NHS Fife, then could it mean nothing?