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

And, bizarrely, even if the Supreme Court ruling had gone the other way, they would still have been breaking the law, because Upton doesn't have a GRC. I've always been utterly perplexed about this case - on what legal grounds did NHS Fife think they were able to allow Upton, who was neither biologically nor legally female, into the women's changing room? I almost want them to continue with the tribunal to hear the argument they come up with.

Great - will go on a hunt! 😀

Someone named 'gift of god' might, in some families, have grown up believing that they were always right and always admirable in all circumstances.

The adult world could well come as a shock.

I assume if Sandie was going to settle they’d have organised that at the recent meeting?

So as far as we know they’ll continue (from 21st July for 2 weeks - sorry wrong date in my post above).

If I were Sandie and had come this far (and completed my evidence) then I’d stick it out until the end of the hearing so that all the evidence is heard and in the public domain.

But most importantly so I could be cleared for the misconduct allegations as part of the ET and avoid another 2 years of potential misery with a PCC process.

From my experience of ETs ACAS are always keen to agree to a settlement because it's cheaper for the public purse.

When I took my employer to ET ACAS called me the day before the T.
I said I would settle (I had a very good case for sex discrimination but was representing myself so was nervous), but my ex employer refused to consider it - they had hired a professional.

Reader, I won the case by a unanimous vote.

I've often mused why they refused to settle and the only conclusion I can come to is their lawyer bigged up their chances of winning and they underestimated my legal prowess. In fact they underestimated me full stop which i think was their main problem 😁

(Apologies for derailing, but just incase anybody else was interested, this is the answer

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?page=36&reply=143656431)

You can only settle with someone who wants to settle. Maybe NHS Fife could throw in the towel and withdraw their defence? I’m not sure. The problem for them may be that Upton is also named as a Respondent so can they do that without throwing him under the bus? Obviously he deserves it, but they’ve stood by him…

I would have been happy to answer again, but well done for finding the right post!

@RoyalCorgi:

I've always been utterly perplexed about this case - on what legal grounds did NHS Fife think they were able to allow Upton, who was neither biologically nor legally female, into the women's changing room? I almost want them to continue with the tribunal to hear the argument they come up with.

It’s because every NHS trust - or at least all of the ones we have audited, and we have no reason to suspect the others will be different - have written policies that explicitly state that under no circumstances should a trans person - no matter their GRC status - be required to use the facilities for their birth sex. And that anyone who objects to this must be corrected. It is through all their policies like Brighton through a stick of rock. In a sense, they really are all just blindly following orders.

Now, having a written policy that explicitly breaks the law, that is something different. But the more of these policies I read, the more I think that the people on the ground who just followed them were probably genuinely dumbfounded that their actions were being challenged. They were not acting on the basis of their own principles, but rather on policy, which I think is why none of them have sensible answers about why their actions were justified. They simply had not considered it.

No, that isn't a defence. However, given that we are dealing with criminal offences, it is a defence that the law wasn't clear before the SC ruling. The courts take the view that, if you are going to fine someone or take away their liberty, the law needs to be clear. It should be possible for them to read the law and know with certainty whether they are breaking it. Prior to the SC judgement, the bodies responsible for enforcing the law (HSE and EHRC) were telling employers that the law required them to admit trans women to women-only spaces, and there were some judgements from the lower courts that supported this view. It was therefore not reasonably possible for an employer to know that admitting trans women to women-only spaces was an offence.

Following the SC ruling, it is clear that allowing trans women into the women's toilets and changing rooms in a work setting is an offence. Employers (including NHS Fife) need to change. It doesn't affect single sex wards as they are not a legal requirement. The last government was proposing a change to the NHS Constitution to ensure that single sex wards really were single sex. That needs to happen.

It’s because every NHS trust - or at least all of the ones we have audited, and we have no reason to suspect the others will be different - have written policies that explicitly state that under no circumstances should a trans person - no matter their GRC status - be required to use the facilities for their birth sex. And that anyone who objects to this must be corrected. It is through all their policies like Brighton through a stick of rock. In a sense, they really are all just blindly following orders.

I expect you're right, but it's just mad that so many trusts would have written policies that are quite obviously in breach of the law. You'd think somebody would say something, wouldn't you?

My hope now is that the tribunal decides to make an example of NHS Fife. That they order a massive payout to Sandie Peggie and publish an excoriating judgement that leaves no doubt as to the illegality of the board's policy. If they do that, then other NHS bodies will have to fall in line, whether they like it or not.

Sorry for my poor memory, but was it in the middle of the tribunal that the accusations of patient endangerment against SP were raised? That hadn’t been part of the original suspension?

It may be obvious to us that these policies were in breach of the law, but it really wasn't clear at the time these policies were written. The EHRC were telling employers that the GRA meant they were required to allow trans-identifying individuals to use the facilities that matched their declared gender. This guidance went to judicial review, with the claimant saying that it mis-stated the law. The judge found that the EHRC's interpretation of the law was correct and that none of the claimant's arguments held water. That judgement looks pretty silly now, but in light of that it was reasonable for people to think that these policies were in line with the law.

It wasn't part of the original suspension, but the allegations were made well before the tribunal. IIRC, Upton made these allegations a few weeks after the initial suspension was put in place.

Thanks @prh47bridge

I don't think that Fife will be punished by the ET for breaking workplace changing room regulations and sex-discrimination law. They could point out that, even post-Haldane, the precedent of Croft v Royal Mail has led to widespread treatment of non-grc holders who 'make an effort' as honorary legal females, and there are plenty of lawyers willing to give Counsel's Opinion that this is all fine (SC ruling of course now says it's not fine and never was).

It's too big a topic for the ET, which is more about the conduct of relationships.

They punished SP, without due process, for expressing WORIADS views.

They subjected her to a hostile and degrading environment and did not investigate her complaint.

Even if most people believe TWAW, failing to accommodate her non-belief put her in much the same position as a Muslim who is being persecuted by his workmates with relentless pranks involving pork sausages.

Dr Beth still thinks you are an uneducated bigot. Pork is really beef, and Muslims should be forced to eat a pork sausage every day.

This will be the obvious defense, although lack of impact assessment and basic common sense will be harder to argue. I suspect there will be generosity over the years of misinterpreting the law, but this will not protect them now from having to admit that the law has been clarified, and that they (and everyone else) were wrong and following activist led interesting reinterpretations that were openly discriminatory to women. And that anyone with a shred of sense should have realised it had all gone much, much too far.

Which they would have done had the UK establishment as a whole not been as sexist as fuck in the first place, and happily embracing of anti-women misogynist lobbies giving them nice reasons to oppress women hard while getting to look extra virtuous and Keeping Up with the Joneses. They have absolutely bloody loved it. And they're livid that it looks like they might have to stop and are frantically searching everywhere for ways around it. The idea of women being allowed their protections in law has even MPs throwing public wobblies in the HoC.

It’s been done on a much larger scale with some new schools only having unisex toilets all rubber stamped by architects. And it being accepted by the DfE.
Edited as it gets complicated with devolution.

@TwoLoonsAndASprout
I think you are on to something there. They hadn't considered their actions being challenged.
Possibly because they were following Government guidance, passed do to them.

And we all know Scot Gov is kind of warped, with no real consideration for the people they affect. They are a real them an us. All flag waving "look how caring we are" nonsense.

None of the policies are written for the purposes of GRC owners.
It is ALL self-ID and often includes a whole cast of other "genders" which have nothing to do with the EA.

The people who were writing these were taking instruction from trans charities and internal interest groups. There seems to be little or no oversight.

I have only seen 1 trust where "2 members of a committee" asked questions which the policy writer acknowledged as part of the EqIA which was written. This was the only trust which seemed to have sought internal legal advice. The equality analysis was deeply flawed and the sample sizes and mechanisms for gathering evidence was poor. But it was enough BS to baffle people and say it was all justified/OK. Given that this is a culture where Sandie saying the words "you are a man" was considered a reason for immediate "special leave" and later a suspension, the power of rational thought had long ago left the building... Even those who wanted to push back didn't have the language or support to do it. A horrible hostile environment.

Personally I think the only way this will get routed is if every single GC person puts in a complaint about the current policies and hostile conditions. Mass complaints - they would try to fob them off but if they then went on the file mass tribunal claims they would have to buckle... the question is whether locally people can organise to support one another. A podcast I listened to described it like working with the "Stazi" thought police so there is little bond or trust between staff members to mobilise together.... so horrible for them.

Prior to the SC judgement, the bodies responsible for enforcing the law (HSE and EHRC) were telling employers that the law required them to admit trans women to women-only spaces, and there were some judgements from the lower courts that supported this view.

I assume that NHS Fife's argument will be that they assume all trans people have a GRC which they are not allowed to ask about, so they have to take the TW's word for it?

I deliberately say TW because have there been any cases involving Transmen? I know the Scottish Government would have deprived them of maternity rights.

I also think that they didn't want the bother of challenging Upton - let him finish his rotation and shuffle him off somewhere else and let them deal with it.

Exactly - the whole disciplinary process was dragged out over 6 months which matched the time period for Upton's rotation. I think they thought they could simply drag it out/ignore the proper process and smooth it over once DU had left. Then Sandie sent the solicitor's letter...... panic!..... "start" the investigation.... cue a complete farce/sham 2nd investigation process.....

That was in practice how it worked, and the SC recognised that in discussing how groups of men with different levels of rights would work in practical terms in regard to other people's rights and protections.

No one could ask to see a GRC.
Any man entering a woman's space had to be regarded therefore as possibly having one
But you couldn't question him
And self ID (and the power of men over women in women's spaces) was there, with threatened consequences for women who questioned this or protested, not including the risk that the man was likely to be angry, aggressive and possibly worse. See SM posts of men with swords and machetes in toilets talking about this is what a woman would see happen to them if they dared protest.

That people think this was somehow ok and 'better' than single sex spaces and third spaces just baffles me.

That argument no longer holds water but yes, I expect that is what they would have argued.

If they do make this argument it might at least demonstrate that employers need to know the sex of their employees to comply with the law, which is relevant to the data bill.