NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #51

[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 resumed 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 #50 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 50: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5387893-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-50 7 August 2025 to 1 September 2025

Pete!!

from herald
10:25am
Discussing Sandie Peggie's conduct on Christmas Eve 2023, she says it was "objectible".
Ms Peggie said she was not scared of Dr Upton, however the trans medic in chief evidence said that Peggie was "being direct with her language and not letting it go".
"I pause to observe that high volume is not the only way of anger," Ms Russell.
"There can be no doubt that the prisons comment, where the claimant implied that Dr Upton was a sexual predator, went far beyond."

Florence McCarthy Knox; Mr Flurrie

JR is trying to downplay the special leave and the suspension as a matter of days and a matter of weeks.

PETE doesn't help the tribunal because he hasn't spent two years not transitioning, like our Theo.

God, her arguments are thin.

I don't care about legal differences when meeting men in a changing room, it's their reality that concerns me

Silly argument. Proposing to undergo a transition doesn’t really require any changes does it?

from herald
10:27am
She says upholding the rights of transwomen included investigating claims.
It was necessary to keep the claimant out of the work place to "prevent potential escalation".
A matter of days of special leave and a short period of suspension "was justified" given the incident.
Ms Russell adds that dismissing Ms Peggie from her job at Victoria Hospital would have been an "overreaction" from NHS Fife - but they did not do this.

It shouldn't matter. I'd be angry if I was Sandie, in fact I'd be bloody fuming

From TT

1st R has set out its objectives in the response, to create a safe and inclusive working environment, to protect the rights of employees. It is axiomatic that protecting rights requires investigation of complaints. And it was important because of the seriousness of the complaint, the special leave (days) and suspension (weeks) is not unreasonable.

Turning now to grounds, harassment. The fictional character Pete does not assist the Tribunal. Major difference between DU and Pete. Pete has not started any transition.

JR appears to be arguing that the PC of gender reassignment is of no value if it doesn't provide an access all areas pass.

But it provides it's actual purpose, protection from discrimination, without such a pass

From herald 10:29am
Addressing the hypothetical scenario of Pete - a biological male accessing female changing rooms - isn't fair, according to Ms Russell.
She says that there is a clear difference between Pete and Dr Upton - that the latter has began a transition process.
The barrister said it would be "absurd and "extreme" to restrict transwomen from female spaces in every aspect.

More misrepresentation of witness statements and more straw men. Claiming SP's position is extreme!!

Yes @Signalbox - transition doesn't require any physical changes at all. Can be a matter of a man wearing a dress and changing the name on your gas bill. Or indeed neither of those things.

It's extremist to claim males have a higher propensity to violence, according to JR

Dr Upton was two years into her trans journey

That's not right, is it? Dr U may be now, but one of the ways we knew that DU didn't have a GRC was because that requires the two years at the time of the events, which DU didn't have.

From TT

He was not subject to the PC of GRA. If the point is that no one should have that PC because of other's feelings, it would affect the PC of sexual orientation, beliefs and disabilities that are not visible. The claim that DU set out to harass the C is absurd.

It relies on him being taller, middle class and a doctor. KS is taller than DU, is her entering the CR an act of harassment. If generalisations about men are being deployed, height is a physical one. A propensity for violence has social, psychological consequences. Contrary to the C's

Yes I can see that being a good reason for it. I would hate for NHS F or Upton to have even the tiniest reason which would allow them to appeal.

Someone posted on another thread this morning that it could result in the divorce of his original name from all this, and that at some point in the future he could revert back to original name and registration and all this could basically get swept under the carpet. I think that's a really good and relevant point too.

I'm one of those that thinks his conduct should cause him to be struck off though, so I don't think he should be allowed to keep his original name and registration separate from the one he has under "Beth".

If everything depends on transition, then transition needs to be considered across its whole spectrum, at one end everything including all the surgeries and at the other a mere assertion by a conventionally presenting bloke.

I am finding JR so offensive- it is indeed an attempt to require women to get undressed with men in order to access work and services- enforced sexual harrassment. 'Get yer tits out for the boys' with bells on...

From herald
10:31am
Ms Russell says that Dr Kate Searle is taller than Dr Upton so the argument that Dr Upton intended to harass Ms Peggie with their presence in the changing room is "ridiculous".
The KC also said it is a "fallacy" to say that a physical attribute like height and men typically being taller than women, made someone more likely to be violent towards women was another example of "extremism" from the claimant.

I’ve seen a video of a man peeing in a women’s loo, saying “I’m a woman, innit”.

It relies on him being taller, middle class and a doctor. KS is taller than DU, is her entering the CR an act of harassment.

Misunderstood - edited

Didn't Upton say he'd used the women's at his previous placement?

From TT

criticism. Sorry. The C says that Rs have not set out basis for admission of DU to the CR.
<Missed.>
In relation to purpose of the ancillary matters, C says that R1 was trying to punish her. All of R1 witnesses denied that.

C relies on the discussion of Xmas eve was a

From TT

protected act, and that it was a complaint of harassment. She was not harassed by this. The victimisation case also fails by causation. She cannot show that detriments are not connect to the PC. The C has not shown a prima facie case that anyone was motivated by this.