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

I'm surprised she hasn't used the 'consent' word - that women take off their clothes by consent, in spaces where they consent to other women being present, and a man pretending to be a woman vitiates that consent. Similarly for discussion of rape trauma - who she consents to discuss it in front of, and man in woman-face is (in some ways) like a man hiding his sex engaging a sexual act without consent.

The judge seems, at least,. to have respect for NC's legal knowledge.....it is certainly far greter than his; and most certainly far in excess of that of JR.

She's mentioned that now.

Naomi Cunningham is a total total star and heroine. Dogged persistence couple with a razor-sharp intelligence.

I want to be like her when I grow up.

From TT

NC - the 'license' for employers to operate SSS is in Sched 3, it's not totally clear there are various ways by which we arrive there. I don't think there's a broad statutory protection in the EA to require SSS. By one way or another, sched 3 if workplace facilities are a service

From TT

or by Sched 29, it is lawful under EA to do what employers must do under the 1992 workplace regs.

J - those regs look like they are a criminal matter, it doesn't look like there is a civil aspect to them, do you agree with that

NC - I don't disagree with it just now, but need

from herald
2:31pm
Employment Judge Kemp asked Ms Cunningham whether she believed it could never be justified to allow a trans woman into a women-only changing room.
The lawyer said the very act of admitting a male person undermines confidence in the integrity of single-sex spaces: “If you permit one trans-identifying man into a women-only space, or you have a policy that says sometimes you will permit some trans-identifying men in some circumstances, yet to be determined, to a single-sex space, then what you say to women who use that space is that the sign on the door that says ‘women only’ can’t be trusted.
"And you say that to all women: you say it to robust unbothered women who frequent nudist beaches, but you also say it to ordinary women, to women who are self-conscious about their bodies, to women who are survivors of sexual abuse, who may be traumatised and surprised in that space by a man, even if he’s wearing women’s clothes and taking strenuous steps to appear female, and to women whose religion or culture requires a particularly high level of modesty.
"All those women need to be able to rely on the assurance that ‘women only’ really means women only.”
Ms Cunningham drew a comparison with rape crisis services: “If you say to rape survivors wishing to see a counsellor, ‘our policy is that this is a women-only space and you can be completely confident that everybody in this space is female’, that says one thing — there are no men here. But if instead you say: ‘this is a women-only space, except when it isn’t, except when a man has taken such extreme steps to change his appearance and mannerisms that you will be fooled’, then what you are saying is that you can’t be sure. And that is extraordinarily cruel to a traumatised woman. If she is fooled into thinking her counsellor is female, and later finds out otherwise, the consequences for her could be devastating. Worse still, by adopting such a policy you say to all women using that rape crisis centre: you can’t ever be sure that the person you are talking to is not a man. That undermines confidence entirely.”

From TT

more information. I will come back to you.

J - if it is only criminal how do we take into consideration

NC - by way of background information

J - do we have jurisdiction

NC - you don't have jurisdiction on a claim under the 1992 regs

J - does C have a claim under 1992

I think we all do!

This judge has not got a clue about the context of the whole case.

This is interesting. I hadn’t realised the Regs were criminal, and as they relate to the workplace, I would have assumed they can be considered by the Employment Tribunal. After all, someone could say my employer didn’t provide a SSS for changing or toileting, so I’m taking them to tribunal.

Does someone else have a clearer view?

So NC is making clear that she's not asking for a remedy under the 1992 regs which impose criminal liability on the R for breach. But that they are relevant background.

I think he knows stuff. He knew all along that Schedule 3 only covers service providers.

From TT

J How do we determine a criminal liability matter

NC - no one is asking you to do that, I'm asking you to take account of the fact that R1 has an obligation to provide those facilities. I don't ask you for a remedy under 1992 regs.

You could perfectly properly determine that R1 is in breach, that the PCP is not consistent with the 1992 regs. As you might make ancillary decisions about contract law in other disputes.

J - we heard R2 said believe a woman, in light of FWS it is not a permissible belief

NC - I say that in light of FWS, its a false belief

I can’t believe he’d have got this far through without knowing how significant SC ruling is in this context. He’ll know it inside out. Just using this to get NC to say it out loud

I'm hoping he's employing the "explain it to me like I'm an alien" tactic for courtroom clarity.

I agree. This is for the benefit of the lay members of the panel and for the press and public.

This! It's not as though he's allowed to lead her.

I really really hope so, otherwise we are screwed.

I recall Sex matters have stated the H and S exec are failing to intervene in orgs that are failing to adhere to the Workplace Regs that require male and female changing rooms, because the government are not enforcing the SC ruling.
Judge now suggesting it is a criminal matter the H&S exec must deal with.
Endless legal cases just for women to have basic human rights.

My understanding is that only the Health and Safety Executive is granted power of enforcement under the Workplace Regulations. They don't disclose a cause of action by individuals.

From TT

I don't think i want to go further than to say it may be a belief that is protected, that doesn't arise for your determination, if it did arise it might be argued that in the form in which DU holds its,

you may recall DU said no obligation to disclose sex to someone who requested a female doctor. It might not be found to be WORIADS but that is not for your determination.

J - R1 says no requirement to use CR

NC - it is reasonable treatment of female employees to provide them with female only CRs, it can't be reasonable to admit men

[WORIADS = worthy of respect in a democratic society]

From TT

J - on discrimination, are you considering direct discrimination of GC belief,

NC - can I come back to you on that

J - I can see the consequences of that belief, but I was wondering if it was direct belief discrim

NC - what is the pool of affected people,

I think that Michael Foran has said that the bar is quite high for prosecution, e.g. somebody losing a leg.

From TT

<apologies> question from just 'what is the pool of affect people'

NC - about 200 people in dept, but we never got a good answer about users

J - what is the group disadvantage

NC - no woman and no man can be confident that their SSS will be SS, the group disadvantage for women