NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #52

[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 51: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5402652-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-51 1 September 2025 to 2 September 2025

How can the panel make a proper deliberation if they don't know the entirety of the respondents' case? And equally have no answer to the missing parts from the claimant?

NC all agreed make some progress with qs

Judge starts with NC

Why is it all hinging on how SP manifested her belief? Fife put her in this awful situation in the first place, without an impact assessment or any real idea what they were doing, it would seem. Is that not part of the judgement?

It’s all part of the punishment, they’ll try to break SP one way or another.

They are pausing all previous shenanigans and asking qus they would have asked anyway so you can just listen in as usual to clarification qus on cases already made by each side.

Because someone could express their beliefs in the most moderate terms, for example by not agreeing that changing sex is possible, while someone else could be very aggressive and harassing in a way that no employer could permit.

It seems they picked the wrong woman to make an example of then didn't they!

From TT

Judge and Panel return.

NC - we are all agreed that the best thing to do this afternoon is to make progress with your questions. In a rare moment of agreement between the parties.

J - just to clarify we have made no decisions on the application.

J - first question - is it the point that the SC

From TT

case makes it clear that the under the EA no man can use a female changing room.

NC - yes, it's because of discrimination. The EA mandates employers exclude men from women's changing rooms because of indirect discrim. And direct discrim against men who might be denied access.

They did, and thank goodness she has the utterly fabulous Naomi Cunningham in her corner.

Judge confused about the Supreme Court judgement in a way that even I am not.

I see that but she should not have been put in this situation in the first place - there was no consideration of how the CC would impact on women, no avenue left open for her to raise her concerns - it's as if they pushed her into the confrontation (which I will don't think was harassment)

But in trans ideology either would represent actual harm and be an unacceptable abuse of a trans person?

From TT

J - end of SC decision uses 'allow and permit' in para 212, 214, 220, 221 - these are all in the context of sched 3. They say you may exclude if proportionate. That seems to be hard to reconcile with your argument.

NC - the point of the exclusion of a TiM from a women's only

From TT

space is not on PC of GR, but on the PC of his sex. There is the permission to exclude someone with the PC of GR because of that PC. Easiest example of this is because of a TiW, she remains female, she would be entitled to use SSS for women, but may be excluded from those

NC: He should be excluded because of his sex.

from herald
2:00pm
The first question is about the impact of the For Women Scotland v Scottish ministers Supreme Court ruling, and is if someone with the sex of a man cannot be permitted by an employer to use a female changing room.
Ms Cunningham says yes, that the Equality Act tells employers exclude men from women's changing rooms because of indirect discrimination, and direct discrimination against men who might be denied access.

1:56pm
Both teams have agreed to take questions this afternoon.
1:54pm
EJ Kemp asks the two legal teams if they should do questions now or if they should adjourn and do them in writing.
Both legal teams ask for five minute to take advice from their clients.

Is the judge really confused about the proportionate means to a legitimate aim? Like womens safety, privacy and dignity?

From TT

spaces, because is sufficiently likely that person will cause distress. I say that those paras have nothing to do with this case. We are saying that DU should be excluded from those spaces because of his sex, he must be excluded because of his sex.

is the Judge playing dumb or has he really not read the SC judgement?

I don't know if it's worrying, or just for clarification, that the J seems to be quibbling about the SC ruling...

Yes, but fortunately the decision on where Sandie Peggie sits on the scale from most mild to most aggressive, and where that is with respect to the threshold of acceptability, is being decided in a legal forum.

Hopefully playing dumb

This is a really basic aspect of the SC ruling and it really sounds (from TT even) as though the Judge doesn't get it.