NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #49

[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 resumed on 16 July and the last day of evidence was 29 July 2025. It will resume again over 1 to 2 September for closing submissions.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February 2025. Sandie Peggie returned to give more evidence on 29 July 2025.

Access to view the second part of the hearing remotely was obtainable by sending an email request to [email protected] by 5pm on Wednesday 9 July. Detailed instructions were provided here:

drive.google.com/file/d/16-9POEZ7yHWUr6EmbfquJZO18Gv78bSm/view

The hearing is being live tweeted by x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 and tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6. 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.ph/WSSjg.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Links to previous threads #1 to #40 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 41: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379334-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-41 24 July 2025 to 25 July 2025
Thread 42: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379820-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-42 25 July 2025 to 25 July 2025
Thread 43: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379979-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-43 25 July 2025 to 27 July 2025
Thread 44: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5380196-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-44 25 July 2025 to 28 July 2025
Thread 45: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5381518-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-45 28 July 2025 to 28 July 2025
Thread 46: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5381640-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-46 28 July 2025 to 29 July 2025
Thread 47: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5382102-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-47 29 July 2025 to 29 July 2025
Thread 48: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5382317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-48 29 July 2025 to 31 July 2025

"IB: I'm an ally, not necessarily top one"

outside the tribunal in Dundee, Jane Russell KC, stopped to pet a border collie. “Would that be a female dog or a male dog?” asked a mischievous Scot. Russell laughed nervously. “Ha-HAH! Well, I don’t know. How would you know?” she mumbled, then darted into the building.

LOL. Great column from Janice Turner.

Yes - from a health and safety perspective. Yet according to the EHRC this is what we may be getting looking at their ‘solution’ example in a shopping centre.

I predict eventually these toilets will be decommissioned in many places as they will be used for drugs, sex and smashing the bowl. The reasons many public toilets were closed.

We need proper empirical dataset (which doesn’t exist nationally at the moment) to inform the design change on toilet provision.

Surely if the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act didn’t apply to employers there would be far fewer claims, including this one?

It doesn't, since it is purely about the Equality Act. However, the discussion around single sex changing rooms, etc., are clear. Yes, they are obiter, but they are persuasive. Given what they have said, it really is not tenable to argue that, having decided that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, they would rule differently on the workplace regulations.

Please don't assume I agree with any of my arguments - I'm just trying out what JR might come up with.

I recall lots of debate in advance of FWS, and none of it came anywhere near what actually transpired.

I'm hoping to be similarly surprised and delighted again!

So there could be an allocated time where men (even if they have to say magic words and then be pronounced exceptional men) have access to both the male and the female facilities. At this allocated time, women would be deprived of access to their own female facilities.

Men would never lose access to their male facilities. Women would have to wait whilst men technically have access both single sex changing rooms.

Ah ok, fair enough! I’ve never been more pleased to be wrong than i was about the outcome of FWS.

@theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw Sorry for misunderstanding. It was interesting to read Croft. I think we are all interested in thinking about things from other perspectives,

But isn't this about the (maybe theoretical) case where the men's toilets are flooded out due to a plumbing disaster, and emergency measures have to be put in place temporarily?

Russell 'helped' with the FWS part of the submission.

2 The Claimant was represented at trial by Ms White; the Defendants by Ms Crowther KC and Mr Maini-Thompson. The Claimant’s submissions regarding FWS were the combined work of Ms Russell KC, Ms White and the Claimant’s solicitor Mr Champ.

Ah, ok. Wrong end of the stick.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Fantastic!! Arrogant and Pompous loosing together!

I disagree that the tide is turning. Look at all the employers offering support and succour to some groups of employees but not others. They are digging in to draw this out.

Personally I think employers that are doing this are just performing a cynical virtue signalling, face saving, we are kind really, PR exercise so they won't suffer any backlash and they can say we were made to do it, it's not our decision, be nice to us.

dont forget Champ, who has yet to understand the judgement (based on Independent article I saw quoted somewhere)

Champ by name but not by nature.

On the other hand, it was made very clear (via human rights law) that requiring someone to be post op in order to be eligible for a GRC would be unacceptable (because, as you say, it would be unethical). Does that not apply to access to women's spaces, too? You can't ethically, or (if I have understood correctly) legally, make having trans affirming surgery the condition by which someone gains 'privileges' that are not afforded to people who do not undergo the surgery.

Might have bloody guessed it was Sheff. They had T flags all over the children's hospital for Pride again this year.

Come on now, maybe it was one of the longer haired BCs so you can’t see at a glance whether there’s a penis or not, be fair 😂

Meanwhile my border collie instantly knows the sex of any human she meets, because although she likes everyone, girls are her favourite. It’s not that difficult Jane!

If anyone followed the case at the time, the evidence from the experts was an enlightening exercise. IIRC, White could see the writing on the wall, and tried to switch his arguments up mid cross. He could see that the expert evidence was emphatically confirming the facts on male advantage in pool, so tried to argue the degree/level of advantage could be mitigated via a ‘handicapped’ process. Which I think helped the judgement confirm that the existence of advantage, not the size/extent of that advantage, is enough to justify invoking the sports exception under the EA2010 to exclude all males, inc larping blokes, from female only competition.

Also, counsel for the defendants was excellent. She really drilled down on details in the expert evidence that made following that & understanding it easier to follow.

Perhaps the lawyer could suggest his handicapping system to international sporting bodies to enable trans men to compete?

Perhaps RMW could suggest a handicapping system for lawyering? He, JC and JM, might then win a case. Although, insisting that only his side may speak, is not necessarily a forumula for success, given the lack of substance in anything they say.

Croft vs Royal Mail predates the Gender Recognition Act. It was (part of) a judicial attempt to institute a formal scheme for gender recognition in the UK, which was conclusively wiped out by Parliament legislating the GRA. It has zero validity going forward and no argument based on Croft should concern anyone.

I thought that it established that a man who had not transitioned definitely did not have the right to use women's facilities.

The GRA just clarified what it meant to transition.

I’m sure @Keeptoiletssafewill have seen this very sad story. The circumstances here may have been a bit out of the ordinary, but I totally accept that most people would just walk away from a locked floor to ceiling door and find another option, not ever assuming it requires investigating.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzgnw62k4o