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

Apologies if I’ve missed this - was the EHRC deadline for NHS Fife yesterday?

Adding my thanks. Great article.

They will step in if the words of the constitution cannot possibly bear the interpretation the association wishes to use.

But if the only way they can be legal under the EA is to be clear that they are open to everyone - their current 'no' to men is clearly not legal - can the constitution's 'for women' bear the interpretation 'for everyone'?

They need to come up with a formulation that satisfies both, and I can see only the obvious one.

Also worth noting: if they are providing womens and mens groups/facilities/whatever (proving that a proportionate need was identified or there wouldnt be separate provision) the women's provision can no longer be a mixed sex group called women but in fact used by men.

Particularly if this in fact means men get the option of two groups, one men only, but women get the mixed sex one and nothing else. Easy open goal for legal action right there. It is going to be much harder to hide and disguise the inequality for women.

I would think just making it the womens (and transwomen's, and non binary women's and other feminine identities) institute would sort it. I can't see a group wanting to meet around a group of characteristics being refused if that's what the members are agreeing to and what the group is for. It would only be a group wanting clear limits of women only that would need the EqA to be able to legally refuse men entry, surely? The whole point was to stop harassing groups to have members outside of their shared characteristic, which wrecked the group, but were told the law did not allow them to refuse.

Yes. I’ve seen no coverage yet of a reply from NHS Fife. But someone posted from the EHRC on X saying they were meeting the Scotgove health secretary next week… so maybe they’ve all bottled it

I think they should go back to being for biological women only, but if you read my previous posts on the subject, I think their current position may be defendable if anyone takes them to court.

I agree with this but, in order to e certain, we could do with a court decision as to how far down the road you need to go to qualify as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

You just need to declare a transgender identity to be protected. We knew this yesterday - where has all this stuff about journeys down the road come from? Anyone who says they are trans has the PC of GR. Just as much as someone who has made modifications or acquired a GRC.

Just declaring a transgender identity doesn't actually fulfil the requirement of the EA2010 though:

'Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.'

However, without defined terms for 'proposing', 'physiological' and 'other attributes of sex' we're in the dark as to what qualifies as proposing (if you're already on hormone treatment or have had surgery / are booked for surgery, then it's obvious you fulfil the criteria).

Have people taken the safe view to date, that simply saying you're transgender is enough, to make sure they don't fall foul of poorly-defined legislation, or does case law support that?

My opinion (not a lawyer!) Is that the WI membership criteria is not lawful. I'm sure the PP is right that courts don't like interfering with how associations define themselves, but this isn't a club for people who like model trains excluding those who don't. This is a club using the SSE to exclude people on the basis of sex, which is usually illegal. The starting point is that its illegal to discriminate based on sex and so to do so you have to follow the EA exceptions. But the WI conflate the pc's of sex and gender reassignment. This was found to be unlawful in the first FWS case about public boards so it might be unlawful in the case of associations too, though I don't know.

I don't know who would have to sue and on what grounds to force this.

Until the other day it was widely thought it might be illegal for WI to exclude a trans woman with a grc, making it difficult in practical terms to have a policy that excluded any tw. We know for sure now that was wrong. So if some members got into positions of power and pushed for a rule change it would be lawful.

That's my opinion but it is just as likely to be wrong as right!

Update from Sandie's daughter. Lovely to see.
https://x.com/nicoleepeggiee/status/1913283364691357778

You mean how far down the road you propose to go.

If the WI want to include trans women, it would be illegal to not also include males who are not trans women. So it’s natal women only, or mixed sex.

Yes - it’s a mess. People seem to think it will be obvious but without the ability to see into souls it’s hard to see. The wording is inherently problematic: physiological OR other attributes of sex. I’d argue all attributes of sex are physiological. Dr Upton would disagree. But this drafting is a nonsense.

We now know what the Equality Act means by sex, and therefore by 'woman', but in other contexts, such as the WI constitution, 'woman' can be use to mean something else (reasonably credible) if they want it to.

I would tend to agree with this. I’d suggest anyone with a WI membership simply cancels it and explains why. Maybe donate it instead to one of the many many gardening funds that will be needed. And simply meet you WI mates for coffee somewhere else for a while until sanity is restored.

But why cancel? This is the time to act and push for change! Why not have as many GC members as possible reference the judgment in an email to head office and ask when they are proposing to rectify the error of law, since surely they wouldn’t want to find themselves on the receiving end of legal action…?

Even better find the bit in their constitution where they are obliged to be compliant with all relevant laws etc and ask them when they’ll be rectifying their that non-compliance …?

Wonderful ❤️

Yes. As it's written, lacking case law, all Bob from Accounts needs to do to be covered by Gender Reassignment is sit back in his, chair, throw down his pen, announce 'I'm thinking of changing my gender' and then she's covered. The chair and pen bit aren't even necessary and I have my doubts about the announcement.

Thank you for the Peggie update. It lovely to see the good that's come from this.

If you think they’ll listen then great. As far as I understand thats not worked well so far. But do what you think best. Personally I’m withdrawing all support from non inclusive organisations and suppliers. From the statements and coverage it seems many intend to flout the law. I’ll not be supporting them in that.

I think citing the judgment would help. They can no longer claim it’s unclear. I’m not a member myself…but it would be open to anyone who was. I was just thinking you would necessarily even have to “get into a position of power” - just send a load of letters.

Me neither, but after seeing Aviva on the Stonewall list I’ll be writing to them as my pension & home insurance provider and also my ISA provider Hargreaves Lansdowne (also 2 kids’ JISAs). They are my biggest annual spends so I’ve started with first. Then I’ll work through the rest in turn to express my wishes.

We all need to do the same. Put up and shut up only works if we actually comply. I dissent!

back to the 'I need a new job' thing, NHS Fife have a job I could do 😂wont say what job as that would probably out me, but if it wasn't for their batshittery (and the fact its the other side of Scotland), I would consider applying!