NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #53

[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].

The hearing was 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: 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
Thread 52: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5403218-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-52 2 September 2025 to 4 September 2025

I’ve said along that I don’t think he’ll rule that Upton sexually harassed Sandie simply by using the women’s changing room. That will need to go to a higher authority I think, this judge will fudge it IMO.

What about the fact that she expressed discomfort whilst he was in there? Also from what we have heard at the Tribunal, it seems clear that he was looking for offence - that he wasn't someone who would withdraw quietly.

Would Sandie's views not be classed as WORIADS? I suppose that this is what might be tested. However it goes, one side or the other is likely to appeal.

Presumably it would be harassment if Pete did it. Did NC test the case where Pete sincerely held a delusional belief that he was Margaret Thatcher?

She's claimed both sexual harassment and just plain harassment, IIRC. The latter is a lower bar.

I have met Mandelson. He was in the year above me at school. I have always known what he is like. It is a constant amazement that Labour politicians keep being taken in by him.

One of Mandelson's school friends has posted on the internet about how pupil power got rid of the then headmaster. The self-important post is wildly inaccurate and thoroughly deluded - the head's departure had nothing to do with pupil power. But it reminds me of what Mandelson was like at school.

A (correct IMO) ruling that it was sexual harassment of women in and of itself letting men use the women’s changing room just because they said they identify as women would blow much of the TRAs’ nonsense out of the water. When I’ve argued this with TRAs here, mentioning no names, most of them haven’t even considered this angle.

Yes, I take your point, I’m more focussing on the sexual aspect.

There is no specific law banning men from women's toilets and changing rooms or vice versa. However, depending on the circumstances, they could be charged with various offences including harassment and voyeurism. And, in a work situation, an employee can be disciplined and, if necessary, sacked if they deliberately use the wrong facilities.

I’ll be interested to see this judges decision re harassment.

The WPA which came into effect recently bestows a specific duty on employers to actively try and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. If any male, trans or otherwise, is determined to constitute sexual harassment then this duty will seemingly lead to another avenue covering the protection of SSS.

Ideally we’d get a final determination in our favour in that at EAT or even higher!

By other avenue I mean in augment btw. Failure to abide by the duty to prevent etc etc

Re-work the Chic lyrics to “Good Times”.

I don’t think people are necessarily taken in by him. I think he is a highly competent operator and that has a high value in the political world - look how rare it is. They weigh up competence against character and hope he won’t get caught on their watch.

Does anyone think that Upton really believes he's a woman? I know that I don't.

I would bet the farm that he knows perfectly well what he is; and exactly what he isn't.

Agree. He surely wouldn’t have passed his medical exams if he’d said “I don’t understand what you mean by female”.

But he's not a robot. And he's biological. And nebulous dog whistle. And not knowing chromosomes. And and and.....

He's a wazzock, a foolpiece and nasty vexatious piece of work. And not fit to be a doctor.

If wazzock and foolpiece are not genuinely circa 15/16th c English terms that is evidence of a mighty conspiracy. Nasty vexatious and not fit obvs more easily understandable.

Sorry?

It was alluding to the stonkingly brilliant women (real ones) on this thread. From physics to Eng Lit via everything

Naomi covers conduct of a sexual nature comprehensively in her submission.

I attach screenshots of pp 88-90. Apologies as I can't copy from the submission to paste directly in my post. [Oh yes I can!!!]

Essentially Upton said the difference between him and Peten(a man who doesn't identify as a woman is this:

So I think, predominantly, somebody's sincerely expressed identity, and their was of moving through the world, and their way of understanding themselves, and the way in which they wish to be treated, yes, I think that is the core of somebody's gender identity, and I think it is deeply personal, it varies person to person.

Wow. I've copied from the screenshot.

Let me see if I can paste the whole argument so it's easier to read. I'll leave the screenshots attached to show accuracy.

[The numbering is overlaid by MN formatting, but is paragraphs 368-377.]

Issue 2: Conduct of a sexual nature?

1. The hypothetical case of "Pete" was put to the Claimant. Pete is a large, muscular and obviously manly man. He has a beard. He wears conventionally masculine clothing and keeps his hair in a conventionally masculine short style. Nothing about him suggests that he thinks of himself or wishes to be thought of as a woman.
2. Pete enters the women's changing room to find a female colleague there in a state of undress, and instead of backing out apologising, steps further into the room and closes the door behind him.
3. It is submitted that it is beyond doubt that hypothetical Pete's conduct as described is "of a sexual nature": he is deliberately or recklessly violating his female colleague's privacy and intimidating her when she is in a state of undress. His conduct is as much "conduct of a sexual nature" as if he pulled aside a shower curtain while she was showering, or conspired with male colleagues to install a two-way mirror in the women's changing room.
4. Gillian Malone initially hesitated to agree that Pete's conduct was sexual harassment, but when asked to compare his invasion of the women's changing room with the conduct of a male colleague who installed a hidden webcam in the women's changing room, she agreed that both the webcam and the physical invasion were sexual harassment [T802-803).
5. Dr Upton insisted that his conduct was different from Pete's, but he was unable when asked to give any satisfactory account of what it was that made his case different from Pete's. He confirmed:
6. that it was not medical treatment [T315:23-33]
7. that it was not that he held a GRC [T316:22-26]
8. that it was not that he wore his hair long, and Pete wore his short: T316:27-341
9. that it was not about his slimmer and less muscular build [T317:1-5]
10. that it was not that unlike Pete he wore make-up and female-coded clothing:[T317:6-13]
11. that it was not a difference in his and Pete's speaking voices [T317:14-24]

1. Dr Upton then said this:

So I think, predominantly, somebody's sincerely expressed identity, and their was of moving through the world, and their way of understanding themselves, and the way in which they wish to be treated, yes, I think that is the core of somebody's gender identity, and I think it is deeply personal, it varies person to person.

1. Dr Upton's answers from this point became a little difficult to follow, but it seemed that he was prepared to maintain that Pete, as hypothesised - with his big muscles, his short hair, his beard and his masculine dress-sense - might nevertheless be entitled to claim to be a woman and entitled to use the women's changing room. In the end he fell back on a claim that Pete was a woman if that was his "sincerely-expressed identity" [T317:27-341] In other words, Pete (complete with big muscles, beard and masculine dress sense) is a woman if he says he is.
2. It is submitted that this answer was inevitable from anyone who subscribes to gender identity belief. There is no objective measure or definition of what it is to be a "trans woman," and therefore no possible objective difference between Dr Upton's case and Pete's. Dr Upton may have made attempts to construct a feminine appearance, and to adopt what he imagines to be feminine mannerisms, but none of those details of his appearance or presentation could possibly be determinative of whether he is a "trans woman" or a gender non-conforming man, and he gave no evidence to the contrary. His claim to be a woman is founded purely - and circularly — on his claim to be a woman.
3. This being so, provided only Pete's hypothesised invasion of the women's changing room is "conduct of a sexual nature" there is no basis on which the tribunal can properly find that Dr Upton's was not. The tribunal is asked to consider and answer the question whether Pete's invasion of the women's changing room would be "conduct of a sexual nature."
4. Dr Upton, like Pete, is a man. Dr Upton, like Pete, was aware before he entered the women's changing room that his use of it would be likely to cause at least some of his female colleagues' discomfort (which he referred to as a potential for "pushback" (T289)). Dr Upton, like Pete, knew that his presence in the women's changing room was causing a female user of that room distress: because C first left the room when he entered or was there before him, and on the third occasion told him so. Dr Upton, like Pete, stood his ground and refused to leave. Dr Upton, like Pete, made the obviously counter-factual claim that he was a woman.

I hope this helps.

thanks for that myrtle, it is beyond doubt a most excellent argument.

Made by Naomi. I wish I could write like that!

I have been re listening to our Micheal Foran’s analysis on this, he conducts his podcasts as if it is a law lecture, and contains mostly a serious and respectful approach to the proceedings until he gets to the bit about the tech analysis and keeps having to smother a giggle.

I don't think Big Sond can fudge it; it's a big part of the claim, and he must call it, clearly, one way or another. It's quite literally his job. A higher court can only rule on an appeal against a finding; the first instance tribunal must give them something with which to agree or disagree.

Taxpayers to fork out more than £320,000 to cover NHS Fife's legal battle with Sandie Peggie

It is expected the bill will increase further as the latest total does not cover all of the hearings to date with the health board facing the prospect of further employment tribunals it will have to fight.

The health board spent months trying to conceal the sum being spent by taxpayers on legal fees, which saw it blasted by the Scottish Information Commissioner as it launched a probe into its decision to withhold the information.

But now it revealed the amount on its defence, stating it spent £258,000 by the end of July, which has since increased in the August by around £60,000. It it unknown how much it cost taxpayers on the two hearings in September so far.

NHS Fife will only be liable for £25,000 with the Scottish Government covering the rest due to an indemnity clause, which will see taxpayers pick up the tab.

A spokesman said: "NHS Fife can confirm that, as of August 31, a total of £320,436.31 has been incurred in legal costs relating to an ongoing employment tribunal case.

"This figure includes counsel fees and services provided by NHS Scotland's Central Legal Office."

Full article https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/taxpayers-fork-out-more-320000-35896998