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

Quite.

But this is what happens when we decide to let people misrepresent themselves.

The WI don't need a legitimate aim to exclude trans women. I haven't really corrected this as it didn't make any difference to the discussion, but operating as a single sex organisation is not taking advantage of the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act. It is taking advantage of an exemption for associations that allows them to restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic (Schedue 16 paragraph 1). No justification is needed for that. An over-75s club, for example, is fine - it is not age discrimination. An organisation for women is fine, as is an organisation for men.

As an employer yes, they have to provide single sex toilets.

The word "women" is now legally defined as meaning biological women in the Equality Act. The ruling by the Supreme Court did not say it is always means biological women in any legal context. They simply said it means biological women in the Equality Act. The ruling does not mean that the word "women" in the WI constitution has to be interpreted as meaning only biological women.

If the WI carry on, they are clearly not restricting membership to people who share a protected characteristic. They are open to people who have one of two protected characteristics. Are they able to do so? As per my previous posts, case law regarding the way the courts treat membership associations suggests that they probably are, but they only way we will know for sure is if someone takes them to court.

I think that if an ET (especially if related to TW using female facilities like Sandie’s) was seen to turn a blind eye to toilet use on their premises they could be accused of bias

I obviously should have made this clear earlier. The WI does not use, and has never used, the single sex exemption in deciding who to admit to membership. It uses a specific exemption for associations in Schedule 16 paragraph 1 of the Equality Act that allows associations to limit membership to people sharing a protected characteristic.

An association is any body where admission to membership is governed by the association's rules and involves a selection process. It doesn't matter if the association is a limited company running its activities for a profit - it is still an association and can use the exemptions for associations.

Men-only social clubs and golf clubs are permitted and have always been permitted under the Equality Act.

I agree with you and same for guides.

I have also wondered if a woman or girl joins an organisation that gives the persona of being single sex WI / GG but actually isn't could they then claim false advertising or something.

I'm thinking here of a situation where a female either for trauma or religious reasons has seeked out a single sex organisation but is upset at turning up to find it full of transwomen.

Regarding the WI, we might soon(?) find out. This, if it works, was posted on another thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5317608-a-thread-to-record-all-the-apologies-to-gc-women-since-the-supreme-court-ruling?reply=143654705&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

I wish prh47 wasn't just ignoring my posts while writing paragraphs in response to others. I'd appreciate a counter-argument, not just pretending my arguments don't exist.

I largely agree with the responses to others - prh is right that those aren't a legal problem - and I am currently thinking I'm probably correct in identifying where the legal problems are, but prh wishes to ignore them, and only point out the non-problems, and ignore the conflicts. Such as:

It uses a specific exemption for associations in Schedule 16 paragraph 1 of the Equality Act that allows associations to limit membership to people sharing a protected characteristic.

It did. But not if it's mixed-sex it doesn't. As I keep saying, yes, mixed-sex is legal, but they lose all cover for any exclusion like 'no men' statements.

Glad that members are trying to return the WI to its roots. I hope they succeed. The ruling by the Supreme Court certainly strengthens their hand. It takes away the argument that excluding trans women is unlawful discrimination. As per my previous posts, I am unconvinced that a legal challenge would succeed, but pressure from the membership certainly can. If most members want the WI to be for biological women only, that is what should happen.

I agree with @NecessaryScene, I can't see how the WI can legally admit some men but not others.

Eta punctuation and an @

Guides are different because they are under 18 and go on camps which involve sleeping and showering accommodation etc. I’d say theres more basis for a single sex exemption than at the WI. But I agree about the mid-selling aspect of the WI - it’s in the name after all… Maybe that’s what they have to change rather than the Constitution?

I agree this needs more trading out - I think we need another thread tho…

I am not pretending your posts don't exist. I cannot answer every single post on this subject. However, my answer to you is much the same as to others.

If the WI continue to admit trans women, they are not covered by the exemption in Schedule 16. That does not automatically mean that excluding some men is unlawful.

It is unlawful if they are being excluded simply because they are men, which is clearly not the case. It is potentially unlawful if they are being excluded because they don't have a characteristic which is shared by most women but few men (indirect discrimination), but even then it is not unlawful if it is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim.

Putting aside arguments as to whether the WI's approach is indirect discrimination (which is unclear) and assuming that it is, we know from case law that the courts give membership associations like the WI a lot more latitude than employers, public bodies, etc. I doubt there are huge numbers of men wanting to join the WI who are being prevented from doing so by the current rules. The bar for having a legitimate aim is therefore likely to be very low. Something as simple as wanting to be inclusive of all womanhood could be enough.

We don't know for sure. The only way to know for sure is if someone takes the WI to court. If they did, my view is that the WI would win, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

Edited to add...

As for "no men" statements and similar, it depends on context. The Supreme Court decision does not mean that "no men" has to mean "no biological men".

Someone up thread mentioned Men only golf clubs. Men Only was always allowed (the Masons are Men only).

Many Golf clubs changed their status in order to access Lottery Sports funding. I can't remember exactly how it was worded but basically they wouldn't give funding for upgrading facilities if they only benefited Men and women didn't have equal access.

If a man tries to join the WI and is told he can't join because he is a man then that is discrimination based on his sex. WI can no longer defend this using the SSE of the EA because they are a mixed sex organisation due to admitting TW

Yep - the peanut allergy analogy (I think it was Naomi who wrote about it).

As I said elsewhere, I need to bow out of these online discussions for a while. Really need a break from al this! Thanks everyone for views and discussion.

Definitely, something needs to change over the use of all gendered language, Mens, Gents, Lads, Boys, Women's, Ladies, Female, Girls, Lassies (any other dialect words)

Thinking a bit more deeply, everyone has heard of the WI & GG. And it's probably on their websites they accept trans.

But imagine the scenario a traumatised woman is looking for a SSS just to get to know other women, she turns up at some small local "Women's Club" she's found advertised in the supermarket toilets
To find she's walked into a meeting of trans-women.

Surely groups shouldn't be allowed to use gender or sex words if they aren't actually single sex?

Sorry just one final point: so what is the PC that all the members of the WI share then?

It is unlawful if they are being excluded simply because they are men, which is clearly not the case.

How would that be clear? If a man without gender reassignment was refused, and wanted to challenge under sex discrimination, the comparator would be a woman also without gender reassignment. If such a woman is included, then he is being excluded simply because of his sex. Forget indirect discrimination - that's direct.

The Supreme Court decision does not mean that "no men" has to mean "no biological men".

You miss the point. The point is that discriminatory advertising is barred. You can't say 'No Jews' is fine because it doesn't have to mean actual Jews, and it's not your fault if people interpret it that way.

There clearly isn't one. But, given that the number of men who are not trans and want to join the WI is probably vanishingly small, I suspect the courts would find that being inclusive of all womanhood (or similar) is a legitimate aim and admitting trans women whilst excluding men is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.

But they need to be able to rely on the SSE if they won't allow someone to join because they are a man

Right. We will have to agree to disagree then on this point, then. EDIT Sorry forgot to quote/tag and it’s quite important to be clear here.

Right @prh47bridge, thanks for the response. We will have to agree to disagree then on this point, then.

Happy Easter all.

So you think that people aren't protected from discrimination if there are only a small number of people who want to do what they do?

Only a handful of men want to join the WI -> excluding them is not a problem
Only a handful of women want to work on oil rigs -> excluding them is not a problem

This is a bonkers suggestion.

That’s quite the take on prh47’s many posts on this topic over many threads.

Do you perhaps need to reflect a little on the proportionality and good faith of your interpretation?

I haven't read all of her posts. I'm responding to this one specific suggestion that discrimination that would otherwise be illegal is okay if it doesn't affect very many people.

Would you like to attempt to defend that claim?