NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #25

[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
Thread 24: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5301295-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-24

As I understand it, the Federation told WIs that they had taken legal advice which told them that WIs could not legally exclude trans women from membership, and therefore they had to admit trans women.

I find this interesting. Could individual WIs ask who exactly had given the legal advice and on what basis was the judgement made? Or was it the WI Federation saying "we are going to do this, do you agree?"

I have already seen an FoI request in the What Do They Know site asking the MOD about Impact assessment process for the sharing of single sex facilities with transgender personnel:

Dear Ministry of Defence,
JSP 889 “Policy for the Recruitment and Management of Transgender Personnel in the Armed Forces” Part 1 Annex B Para 9 states that transgender personnel should share ablutions and living quarters with personnel with whom they identify in terms of their “gender” (referred to as “affirmed gender”), rather than those of the same biological sex, including transgender personnel who have had no form of gender reassignment surgery (e.g. biological men with intact male genitalia sharing with biological women).
Please provide the impact assessment paperwork undertaken before establishing this policy, any risks that were identified and how they were mitigated, and articulate any legal or moral risk taken to establish this policy, and the names and appointments of those who signed off on this risk.

I expect this will be one of many such questions raised

The Darlington nurses case is set to start on the 20th of October and, it seems, scheduled to last for four weeks.

If Wes doesn’t tell the trust to settle? What sort of defence can the trust possibly attempt now?

Poor Jennifer Melle is the one I am not sure about. I think her trust may still try and punish her.

If we were always at war with Eastasia yesterday and today we’ve always been at war with Oceania then who knows what to believe?!
Will today’s announcement be reversed next week? Not much trust left for them now… I’ll need proper apologies and a Stonewsll enquiry before I believe things are changing…

Are some of these issues not part of the Newman versus Met Police case at the moment? I am looking forward to all these ruling. I’m especially looking forward to RMW having his arse handed to him in the Haynes case when he tries to argue it’s not proportionate to exclude TW from women’s pool and he seems to believe that exclusions need to be justified on a case by case basis. I think he may not be very talented in his chosen field and has massively benefited from male privilege 🤔😂

I am hoping the Epsom and St Helier University Hospital Trust and NMC are already on their knees begging Jennifer Melle (she who was disciplined for using male pronouns for a threatening, racist convicted child sex offender) to take a massive payout and keep quiet.

What on earth is the Darlington Trust’s defence going to be now???
I gather there were quite a lot of unhappy nurses who complained, more than the ones taking the case. The Trust may now find themselves being sued by many others now too!

I expect the Darlington nurses case will be settled. The main differences are there is a group of them and Wes Streeting is responsible not the Scottish Gmt.

The SC ruling happened before their case has started and there is plenty of time to agree a settlement.

What is interesting is what the established unions will do - they refused to represent the nurses (who now have their own union). In my experience Unions are either informed or consulted on policy changes

Re: Girl Guiding, I think that this has made their whole issue with trying to recruit volunteer leaders (an issue of long standing, there's been big waiting lists at various different times, across the country) so much worse.

I was in GG, from Rainbow to Guider. It was a big part of my childhood, I think of it (as it was) very fondly and always intended to go back as a Guider when I had my own children.

But after what they did with Dr Katie Alcock and their insistence that they are a single sex organisation (essentially their USP) when they are in fact mixed sex? Not a chance. And I suspect I'm not the only one.

Now that's one that I'd never thought about. Young military females being forced to put up with men in their living quarters.

Jesus wept it's not that long since homosexuals were banned from the military because of the 'risk' they passed to colleagues. Yet here we are potentially putting straight men in with women. FFS!!!

It surely must be settled now. Yes in the NHS the big unions sign off a lot of HR policy. So they will have signed off on the changing room policy admitting male bodied people.
I really hope the Darlington nurses now sue their union for refusing to represent them against their Trust breaking the law!

My thoughts exactly!

That's exactly it. It's difficult to believe anything anyone says anymore (personally I am at the stage of stopping the world to get off sharpish).

After all, there are so many organisations which have been acting illegally around SSS while persecuting those who pointed it out without consequences. I don't suppose there'll be any now that it's been pointed out by the SC?

I’m really worried these cases will settle. It’s really really important now - more than ever - that these cases get full sunlight. At the time when the policies are being re-drafted.

The scale of this has to come out - I’m up for doubling down on any gardening now to get these cases to the end.

They should not be pressured into settling for something that so clearly in the public interest to continue

@KnottyAuty I very much doubt Sandie will settle, esp if she has who we think she does at her back.

With the military one, I have a feeling cases will slowly start to come out the woodwork and potentially rumble on for decades, just the same as homosexuals were making claims over things that happened before the policy change, and the same as women forced to leave because of pregnancy.

As women get older and realise their safeguarding was pissed up against the wall.
There is bound to be cases where young fit women have been abused by men in their spaces.

Every HR department in the UK should be looking very closely at their policies now.

I think some will settle but others will go ahead because they help further clarify the law. In my humble opinion:

Sandie Peggies case is complex with allegations of professional misconduct and I can see this being decided by the ET.

The Darlington Nurses is more straightforward and is more likely to be settled.

Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley’s case is more likely to go ahead ( she is being sued for saying only women menstruate in a SEEN article).

IamSarah is proceeding with her case.

The David Lloyd case will depend on what David Lloyd do. If they publish a new policy saying biological women only in women’s changing room it is likely to settle.

Allison Bailey vs Stonewall - Allison is never going to settle.

I can’t see them all settling but the simple slam dunk ones probably will. It’s too costly for both sides not to. It’s the more complex cases which are likely to draw lines between Sex and GR that will probably continue.

(1) For Women Scotland on X: "As reported in @heraldscotland today, we were contacted by the committee, albeit in a manner which contrasted to the paid orgs. The interveners were not contacted. However, while Maggie Chapman remains on that committee, we cannot see how we can respond. We have always been" / X

For those who are not aware, Maggie Chapman, member of the Scottish Parliament and Deputy Convenor of its Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee spoke to a rally in Aberdeen over the weekend and said that she saw "bigotry, prejudice and hatred" coming from the Supreme Court. This is the same Maggie Chapman who, despite holding a degree in zoology from Edinburgh University, stated that she does not know her chromosomes so cannot be certain of her sex.

As an MSP, she has a specific legal obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

Her outburst has led to this stinging rebuke from the Faculty of Advocates (which represents Scottish barristers) - Faculty protests MSP’s attack on the Judiciary | Faculty of Advocates

Whether a case clarifies the law is not really a question in whether it settles. That is all about whether the claimant and defendant can reach an agreement. Some claimants may be more resistant to a settlement if they want legal questions settled, but there are risks if they refuse an offer the courts would view as reasonable - not least that the clarification they seek might not be to their taste.

Re Allison Bailey vs Stonewall, I haven't seen anything to suggest she is appealing the EAT judgement. If she isn't, that case is over.

I didn't know there was a David Lloyd case, but in some of the gyms the instructors use the main changing rooms, particularly the swimming instructors, so theyll come under workplace regulations, I don't see how they can get away with men in the ladies.

@prh47bridge Allison Bailey has been granted permission to go to the Court of Appeal https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/doyle-clayton-client-granted-permission-by-the-court-of-appeal/

Thank you. I hadn't seen that. Her statements at the time of the EAT judgement suggested she wasn't going to take it further. I don't know if she will succeed, but good on her for trying.

But after what they did with Dr Katie Alcock

I had heard of the way the Guides had become mixed sex by stealth and how deeply unhappy many Guide leaders were, but I hadn't heard of Katie Alcock.
So it looked it up.

Yet again the same fudging and delaying tactics seen by NHS Fife - all desperate measures to have their policies shielded from the public.

@Peregrina
'Yet again the same fudging and delaying tactics seen by NHS Fife - all desperate measures to have their policies shielded from the public.'

Reminds me of Maggie Chapman's reasoning as to why no trans organisations applied to intervene with the Supreme Court. She said that trans orgs, "have had to deal with the consequences of when they've put their heads above the parapet before. It doesn't do them or their organisations any good. We know that it can lead to investigations with the Charity Commission."

And what could possibly be the problem there, we ask in chorus.

Maggie Chapman, saying the quiet bit out loud.

As far as I can see, the only trans organisation that has been investigated by the Charity Commission is Mermaids. That wasn't because they put their heads over the parapet. It was because there were allegations of providing medical advice and medical referrals for minors without parental knowledge (although I suspect Ms Chapman thinks they should be able to do this) and there was evidence of mismanagement. The mismanagement allegations were upheld, the others were not.

I am not aware of any investigation into Stonewall or any other charity that advocates for trans people.

But, of course, in Ms Chapman's world, any investigation of a charity that supports trans rights must be because the Charity Commission is transphobic, just as the Supreme Court's perfectly ordinary legislative analysis of the Equality Act, entirely in line with established principles of legislative interpretation, must be transphobic. It couldn't possibly be because that is the only viable way of interpreting the Act that doesn't leave the law thoroughly confused.