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 know the question was not directed at me but no, you cannot. For Fife to succeed with a defence that SP raised her concerns in the wrong way, they need to show that there was a right way for her to raise them and that, had she done so, her concerns would have been dealt with properly. However, we are speculating at the moment. I don't know exactly what has been said and, as far as I can see, JR's written submissions are not available online, but I don't think we know the detail of her new argument yet. I struggle to see any argument that would fly, but until we've seen JR's case, we can't say for certain whether it has any merit.

JR’s bananarama defence is not based on evidence of what happened in the CR, but on asking the tribunal to make an assumption about SP’s behaviour based on character - that she is not the kind of person whose beliefs can be protected.

So she could’ve said "my client instructs me to say that they are a woman" but she wouldn’t even go as far as saying that. But willing to drag SP and her family through mud. Nice.

How does a transwomen know their accessing a single sex space is only going to impact the unworthy? Can they magically sense the presence of the pure in thought, word and deed and thus grant them the dignity of being allowed to change unwatched by the male gaze?

That’s easy to answer:
Worthy women welcome TW with open arms.
Unworthy women tell them you don’t belong here.

Yes - I can see that any disciplinary process is unpleasant and that in itself is not harassment. It’s the choices that NHS Fife made when carrying out the process that suggest harassment and discrimination.

However I find it difficult to understand how, if there is evidence that SP expressed her beliefs in such a way that they wouldn’t be protected, that wasn’t picked up by the investigation. Obviously JR might produce a last minute smoking gun, but she seems to be relying heavily on arguments about character.

I disagree. If I shoot a shop assistant for giving me incorrect change, it’s not a defence to murder for me to argue that the shop’s regular complaints procedure didn’t work, or wouldn’t work, or that there wasn’t a complaints procedure at all; the shop isn’t obliged to demonstrate a working avenue for complaints to make the point that my response was grossly disproportionate.

the NHS is entitled to argue that if their response to SP’s complaint didn’t suit her then the correct path is an suit in law against them as her employer. They’re entitled to say that under no circumstances was it appropriate to raise the issues with DU himself.

Now I disagree with them and it goes against their bullying and harassment policy which said to raise the issue with the alleged harasser first.

but I don’t see they’re obliged to have a working mechanism or any mechanism at all in order to suggest an ad-hoc procedure invented by SP was unreasonable.

Wasn't there evidence that SP's manager suggested that she should take the matter up in person with DU?

Quite possibly. I just don’t buy the argument that anything goes unless NHS could demonstrate a flawless alternative mechanism.

I agree it seems like madness. The Fife/Upton witnesses made it abundantly clear that protected GI beliefs are wrongthink and that there was no way in this world they could ever be spoken or demonstrated in a way that R1 or R2 would have felt acceptable.

But a PP said, and I agree, that that is separate to the q of whether SP's behaviours were in fact acceptable [to a reasonable observer].

I say wtf, of course they were acceptable. But that's an answer to a question that it is reasonable (in theory) to ask (although madness to ask here in the face of everything we've seen in the ET).

I think the way this kind of dispute is assumed to be resolved is through unionisation, but obviously that is a bit of a dead end here!

“Anything goes” might apply to going berserker with a handy fire extinguisher, not simply telling a male person he shouldn’t be in a female changing room.

It was clearly made totally impossible by her employer for Sandie to have any agency or support whatsoever.

@MyAmpleSheep “If I shoot a shop assistant for giving me incorrect change”.

I don’t think SP saying to Upton that he shouldn’t be in there because he is a man and he is making her feel very uncomfortable is on a par with shooting him dead. Well, not to normal people. It would be like saying to the shop assistant ‘you’re giving me the incorrect change’.

I think it would be normal to say that to the shop assistant rather than saying nothing and then bring a court case against them despite not saying anything at the time.

Edited to refer to correct poster (I think).

I agree. JR has behaved very badly here. Is there any way to complain about the behaviour of a KC?

I worry about the judge’s bias too. Why agree to JR’s request for to ‘deadname’ Upton??

and surely JR can’t offer a new defence at this stage?!

Not sure about KCs specifically, but any member of the public can complain to the Bar Standards Board about the conduct of a barrister.

Woman's Hour are going to be covering this today

I'm not sure what you mean here by 'anything goes'

SP does not want to undress in front of men
SP tells management this
Management say we think it's fine
SP still not happy with undressing in front of men
Management not interested
SP growing frustration
Management suggest talk to DU directly (I need to find the quote for this, I may be wrong)
SP tries to talk directly to DU

SP is left in the position where
-- she has been seeking resolution for some time,
-- management have not been supportive
-- management appear actively unsupportive
-- she is increasingly frustrated
-- has to broach a very awkward subject with someone who is extremely sensitive to questions of their identity
-- the person who she is trying to speak to is also extremely 'difficult' (I am not sure how to put this but reference DU's performance in court)
-- the person that she has to talk to has a history of 'getting their own way'
-- the person she as to talk to keeps a little black of her transgressions

SP has been put in an impossible position by Fife's management

She only gets to have the conversation once - there are no second chances

I defy even the world's greatest hostage negotiator to have this conversation with DU without DU taking offence.

Goodness me: Womens Hour are still planning to discuss the NHS Fife ET.
They’ve not said who is going to be on….

I'm guessing it'll be a cursory item delivered in a cool 'whatever' tone in between the thrilling issues of the day, which are the new editor or Vogue and Julia Roberts and Amanda Seyfried wearing the same outfit

If anyone's tempted to listen in to Woman's Hour, don't get your hopes up. But at least it's not Anita Rani in the chair.

The Poor Law and the Workhouse will return; strict rules and conditions for relief.

On Woman's Hour now.

This is a civil case where the rules are rather different to murder cases!

In a work environment, saying to an employee that there is no route available for you to raise your concerns and that we will discipline you if you try is not acceptable. That is why employers are required to have a grievance process that takes employee concerns seriously. When dealing with a protected belief, an employer may be able to say that certain manifestations of that belief are unacceptable, but banning all manifestations of that belief is unlikely to be reasonable.

We are dealing here with a whistleblowing issue. Upton's presence in the changing room was unlawful. Fife's actions in allowing him to be there were unlawful. In my view, SP's actions qualify for protection as whistleblowing. In order to say she should have used a different approach, Fife need to show that a different approach was available that did not require SP to take legal action.

Edited to add - having seen your later post, can I be clear that I'm not saying anything goes. But, unless Fife can show that there was a route SP should have taken to raise her concerns where she would not have been disciplined for heresy and would have been taken seriously, there is a lot more scope for her actions to be classed as reasonable than there would be if such a process existed.

Ahh, it's a report from Lorna Gordon. She's quite rational over this which is good but most likely this will be an informative summary rather than anything more.

I worry about the judge’s bias too. Why agree to JR’s request for to ‘deadname’ Upton??

Time will tell, but from Michael Foran’s podcast, I think the judge is trying to avoid grounds for appeal. (Although he probably thinks it’s inevitable). Had he decided otherwise JR is very likely to have appealed, but as it is the most he will get from SP’s team is irritation.

I think that he is trying to do things by the book, and he is also very unlikely to take it upon himself to contradict the SC judgement.

I think his goal is to hand the case onto the next court with as minimal grounds for criticism of his court as possible.

Woman's hour - 'really elongated' - wonder why?

Many threads ago I said that you should be very worried if it seems during the hearing that the judge is on your side. S/he might be, but there is a good chance that they are simply trying to make sure you have no possible grounds for appeal when the decision goes against you.