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

Agreed. This is ridiculous.

He’s read it. He wants to be sure what it means. It’s about clarification of wriggle room, even though IMO the SC ruling actually says men should be excluded from women’s SSS.

I hope he just wants it to be laid out in clear language.

Although I thought it already was.

From TT

J - so DU could also be excluded from men's facilities on grounds of GR.

NC - yes, it might be because he passes well enough to infringe on male privacy. Para 217, many women in F CR, hospital ward, prison - it is hard to see how that....

J - is that in the context of bio male

I don't understand any of the legal stuff, but |I just feel so so sorry for Ms Peggie. No resolution for another month at least.

I think in previous tribunals there have been some questions that appear obvious but they’re asked because they need it explicitly stated to consider it in the decision. I assume that then allows them to specifically agree or disagree with the relevance in the written decision, to avoid an appeal in that aspect

From TT

NC - sorry, wrong para. Please read the last para.

<reads>

J - anything that says the 2nd R could not be given permission to use F CR in the Act

NC - nothing that says that explicitly but important to protect women from indirect discrim and harassment.

Sometimes they ask Qs to get them on the record. Also there are 2 lay members of the panel so it gives them the opportunity to hear from NC on meaning of the law.

from herald
2:06pm
The Judge points to the parts of the Supreme Court ruling which consider Schedule 3 of the Act. These sections allow that exclusion of a trans person may be lawful if it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
The judge noted that the language used by the court is framed in terms such as “allow” and “lift,” suggesting a discretion to exclude rather than a blanket obligation.
Ms Cunningham says the clearest example to give is the case of a trans identifying woman who has taken testosterone or taken other steps to look convincingly masculine.
“We’re not suggesting that Dr Upton should have been excluded from the changing room because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment,” she said.
"And that's why I said earlier that his protected characteristic, gender reassignment, has nothing to do with the case. We're saying he should be excluded from those spaces because of his sex, and we say he must be excluded from those spaces because of his sex. "

From TT

It is impossible to operate the sex based provisions of the act without sex because of threshold conditions. As soon as an employer admits to a man to a SSS it becomes a mixed sex space. So a man would have a claim for direct discrim.

J - doesn't say it in the act explicitly

I'm only getting through this by eating the posh chocolates I have had.

NC: If you don't exclude Dr Upton you lose your right to exclude Pete.

I don’t think he is going to say, well it doesn't say it, so it’s fine, because the SC ruling says men and women in the Act mean biological (in the normal understanding of the word) sex.

I think that is why they are widening the net to cover other alleged behaviour by Sandy. As far as I can work out, JR has focused on three things re the Xmas Eve discussion, the mention of chromosomes, the mention or naming of a rapist, and the fact she persisted in making her point, albeit in a calm, measured way. Given she was speaking to someone she knew, a fellow health professional, I would have thought it a stretch to say this was harassment.

From TT

NC - no, but it's only way that the threshold conditions can be operationalised for sex based provisions, per the EA and SC decision. Says 'likely to be so difficult as to be impossible'. If you don't exclude Dr U you lose your right to exclude Pete (hypothetical Pete).

It needs to be objectionable AND Fife’s response needs to be proportionate. So they shouldn’t have suspended her etc. Fife have to demonstrate both.

I'm going to have to go out soon. I'm annoyed that it's NC I'll be missing, not JR😠

From TT

J - Yorks Police, Appeal case, a person who has had all transition procedures, isn't it reasonable to ask to treat that person as acquired gender

NC - that case is before GRA but when courts were struggling to give recognition to Goodwin, the courts and Parliament reached

From TT

different conclusions. The courts imposed a high threshold, a narrow gateway to all the benefits of being treated as the opposite sex. Parliament chose a wider gateway to a much narrower set of benefits for the GRA. The gateway - to have lived as the opp sex, etc.

from herald
2:12pm
Mr Cunningham argued that under the Equality Act, the very purpose of Schedule 3 exemptions is to preserve genuinely single-sex spaces.
She told the panel there is nothing explicit in the Act that says Dr Upton could not have been allowed into the women’s changing room. But, she said, the “necessary consequence” of the law is that single-sex facilities must remain single-sex if they are to benefit from the Act’s legal protections.
“As soon as an employer or service provider admits a trans-identifying man into what was hitherto a single-sex space, it converts it into a mixed-sex space,” Ms Cunningham said. “That cuts off its defence to a claim of direct discrimination from a man who is excluded."

NC it's not a vagina

#SadTimes

From TT

NC - I would say it's a dead letter by the GRA and EA. You may say that's a good thing because that's such a high bar, it's not possible to change sex literally, even a man has a neo-vagina, he doesn't have a vagina. He may be visually female but he is not female for all

She called it a neo-vagina?

Edit: Cross-posted with Myrtle's TT.

Thank you and others who have pointed this out, I was getting sweary at my screen again for a moment there!