NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #50

[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
Thread 49: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5383443-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-49 31 July 2025 to 8 August 2025

Should complain under both registrations then.

Onto Higgs

From TT

hurdles. Would have to satisfy that interference with women's Art 8 rights is justified by letting DU undress with female colleagues. Ambitious tending to unrealistic. R would have to satisfy that ECHR would find that established.

If matter before ECHR would be matter of intense argument c right of women to not be exposed to male colleagues when undressing etc. Closer at this point to being something tribunal can be pretty confident would go the other way. R would need to id provisions of EA re R's Art 8 rights and satisfy tribunal wouldn't

I have once in a ski resort. It was horrible and intimidating. The men were peeing with the doors open. One with their arse hanging out. There’s no way I would have felt comfortable sending my young DD in on her own, like I would with single sex toilets. I had to clean up before she could go as they were disgusting pee everywhere.

From TT

go against intent of legislation. Finding would be in flat defiance of FWS judgement - that bio sex is fundamental feature of EA. Not alternatives - R need to clear all and if one hurdle fails R fail.

NC R now say Treatment of R2 by C is harassment because of manner. Surprising at this stage.

[R2 is Upton]

So people are holding up French loos as an example of cultural sophistication and progressivism…why?

Is there a right way to answer the 'should Pete the manly plumber be in the ladies?' question?

Yes, then you are obviously a fool who has decided to ignore the evidence before your eyes

No, then you agree that men, even those who claim to be women should not be allowed

No answer, you know that you have no logical basis for your opinions

I think it might have been her association with the charity board of Sex Matters, and Maya's giving evidence, and the implication that this was somehow unprofessional or conflicted or dodgy or some such nasty nonsense from the R's side? That there was somehow something wrong with being associated with a human rights charity.

Gross! So basically just a male bog that's designated unisex then.

A nightclub near me slapped "gender neutral" signs on the former M & F toilets, so I was confronted with men peeing in urinals. Spun on my heel, complained by email, got no reply. Last time I visited (still pre Supreme Court ruling) they'd reverted to the M & F signs, so maybe I wasn't the only one to complain.

Thank you for my t-shirt...
Fangirls of NC - of which there are a few on here - might like a tshirt that says
NC- I WOULD FOLLOW YOU TO THE END OF YOUR AUTHORITIES💘
😁

From TT

NC Not foreshadowed before in R argument so now not before tribunal for determination. But also, we say argument doesn't work for number of reasons. Case guides you through this - best one Tribunal has - is Higgs v Farmer's School. English so not directly binding on this trib

I have to pick a time to go and collect someone this afternoon - does anyone know how long NC is likely to speak for? Would love to be able to catch her closing...

Yes, there was a lot of wittering about this as if it was some sort of gotcha in the form of a secretive conflict of interest which had been unearthed, instead of completely open and above board.

Note on jurisdiction from me. IANAL, but I studied Law at uni.

English cases are not necessarily binding on Scottish courts because they have different legal systems.

Court of Appeal, House of Lords and Supreme Court (new name for HoL) are binding in all jurisdictions unless they only deal with Scottish legislation (either from the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament), when they are binding only in Scotland.

Thus FWS is binding on Scotland and the rest of the UK because it was brought by a Scottish plaintiff and it referenced the Equality Act 2010 which is UK law.

ETA clarification on court of appeal bindingness as was not clear.

NC Dr Upton is a man

They would be idiots to do anything that gets women to avoid their club. Back in my day some places would give women free drinks to get them in there.

Probably before 2.30pm.

Nice use of the word hyperbole by Naomi.

From TT

J comments - can't hear] NC Might as well be binding, is probably best way of putting it. Manifestation of belief in Higgs - can be objectionable in manner, so R would have to convince that manner C manifested belief was objectionable and R treatment of C therefore was acceptable.

NC Failure at any stage is sufficient to defeat manifestation. Real reason for treatment came out in evidence and docs - we deal with that in written closing. Also came out in R witness evidence. What was really unacceptable on C part was that she had stood her ground when faced with man in w changing room and said shouldn't;t be here cos man. Core GC.

NC R said SP was objectionable cos said DU man, compared with prisons, was aggressive. But Du said she was calm without raising voice. SP pointing out Du a man. Core to Sex

Sometimes it seems like GI is a sort of secretive society - no conflict there though

Loving Naomi right now, she's calling out the way the respondents have behaved during the proceedings

She is on fire

From TT

realist belief. And if SP can't say that without being called bigot, can't manifest her beliefs at all. Emphasise point c language. Tussles re language threaded throughout ruling. R haven't appealed your approach re lang but R have objected throughout. DU objected

NC These were futile and time wasting. He couldn't let any use of language he objected to pass. Attempts to control language C used even to this trib have been reflected by full blown hysteria outside trip inc calls for me and Judge Kemp to have citizens arrest for their lang etc

NC denying the chromosome statement, and that Sandie didn't raise the question.

Something about genitals