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

It shows that the judge sees the stupidity of it!

Is this as awkward to watch as it is to read?

Yes!

I think in that kind of scenario the focus would be on a prosecution of the attacker by the police etc. When that has been done I can't see the HSE following up with action against an employer for an impermissible layout of the crime scene.

In a way this falls between two stools: it's correct that single-sex toilets are not able or designed to be entirely rape- or attack- proof, and that arguments about dignity and privacy are much more significant in day-to-day scenarios, but those day-to-day scenarios are not ones that would appear individually significant enough to generate enough interest for a criminal case.

She's really on the backfoot. 😁

J Wouldn't it be your birth cert

Didn't they actually talked about certified sex in the FWS judgement?

Yup.

Anyone else thinking that now JR is looking a bit crumpled, that whole white get-up looks just like a dressing gown? With the drape collar an' all?

Very much so. Not helped that due to the heat JR looks rather pink in the face

It's possible to argue with the interpretation of them, though.

As with parts of the law, apparently.

Big Sond sums up the whole farce with 'Do you need to take instructions'

from herald
3:10pm
Employment Judge Kemp asked Jane Russell KC how she interpreted the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland judgment in the context of the Peggie case.
The judge said: “I read For Women Scotland as saying that biological sex is essentially dependent on sex assignment… it does say what it means, quite early on — ‘we use the expression biological sex to describe the sex of a person’. But it doesn’t say what that actually means. Wouldn’t it be your sex at birth?”
Ms Russell replied that the ruling “doesn’t say what that contains, beyond the sex of a person at birth,” adding: “It doesn’t, for example, go on to describe what was kind of observed at that time. I don’t think it sets out a test of biological sex.”

From TT

JR. BMA have said terminology used here isn't medically literate. As a lawyer, not a medic - sex is complicated and nuanced.

J on vast majority of cases

JR Not complicated

J And with regard to R2?

JR Not complicated and not making that argument

J evidence we have is id ing as female...

JR No need to take instructions. FWS has had said it has re bio sex and DU in evidence not talking as a lawyer.

JR This is potential conflict of rights situation

J So how taken into account?

JR IB relied on statutory CoP to balance rights

J It's guidance not statutory

JR Laid before Parliament

J But not guidance. Code based on Part 3, in civil case. So in case between employees or employer?

JR Nothing covering this in employment practice code.

J Does that not tell us something?

Yes, but then they said certificated sex was a silly idea. So the q here is, what do they mean by sex?

That is an amazing question to ask. Bravo judge. But it’ll be a cold day in hell before the likes of JR will give an honest straightforward answer

I think JR is feeling the heat in more ways than one.

"J evidence we have is id ing as female..."

Yes, Judge, women don't generally identify as female, we just are female.

I'm cringing for her.

From TT

JR Would have to check, if that was deliberate absence.

J On face of it, as matter of intent, Sched 3 no cover for purposes of employment.

JR May have felt not needed as no mirror of statutory provisions for Part 5. Unfortunate that there isn't equivalent guidance in workplace re these sensitive areas.

J We have to play with what we've got.

JR. Yes. That's what IB looked at.

J Q is whether IB was right to. Have heard evidence that IB said R2 had right to use f cr? About balancing rights?

JR Problem is that we 'should' is in first sentence.

Her voice is getting a bit wobbly.

I sense this judge just wants some stats and some case studies so he can get an idea of how this looks in reality.

Isla Bumba going under the bus, quickly followed by Kate Searle...

From TT

JR And then the rest of the para. That's when proportionality exercise comes in. IB dealt with matters on case by case basis. No blanket policy. She considered each time asked. This isn't situation where there was an ad hoc encounter where two people didn't know each other

Yes, her voice has definitely changed. Less patronizing

Yes, I trust that this J is able to analyse them properly.

Edit: I do trust him, I'm not expressing doubt or hope.