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

And a second level of appeal to the Appeal Court would be binding on all legal branches?

It is unlikely this case would get that far. If it did, the Court of Appeal's decision would be about employment law, not criminal or civil law. So, although the decision would technically be binding on the criminal and civil courts, it wouldn't actually affect them as they don't hear cases under employment law.

To be specific, if it got that far the Court of Appeal would determine whether a man being in the female facilities was harassment under the Equality Act 2010, but that does not necessarily mean the same standard would apply to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which is what defines the criminal offence and gives the victim a civil remedy.

You're making it sound like there are three sorts of law - civil law, criminal law, and employment law. I'm not sure that's what you intended.

No, it isn't what I intended. Sorry.

There is civil law and criminal law. Employment law is generally civil law but occasionally criminal. The point I was trying to make is that this case is about the Equality Act, so that is what any appeal to the Court of Appeal would be about. It is not about the Protection from Harassment Act. A decision by the Court of Appeal would determine how the Equality Act is to be interpreted unless overruled by the Supreme Court. It would be persuasive but not determinative in regard to interpretation of the Protection from Harassment Act.

NHS Fife has just appointed three new non-executive board members:

https://www.nhsfife.org/news-updates/latest-news/2025/09/three-new-non-executive-board-members-appointed-to-fife-nhs-board/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNBQCNleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHjVt6YC1k_fZQF1Yi1hr8WhCcSU3H0eHgR0gRqmW0aETxVOFJm5vLUs19uBc_aem_pVrt2QSiipUp3ZlUGKK-bw

Dean of Medicine and Head of the School of Medicine at the University of St Andrews, Professor Deborah Williamson, has joined the Board of NHS Fife. Professor Williamson brings a wealth of experience in clinical science, public health, and academic leadership to the role. A globally recognised clinician-scientist, she has held senior positions in public health and academia across Australia, New Zealand, and the UK.

Professor Williamson’s appointment to the Board follows the announcement in July 2025 that NHS Fife had become the first Scottish Health Board in over 50 years to receive official university health board status. This prestigious designation places NHS Fife among a select group of ‘prescribed health boards’ and enables a representative of the University of St Andrews to join the NHS Fife Board.

Joining Professor Williamson in being appointed to the Fife NHS Board are Craig MacDonald and Joni O’Sullivan, who were recently confirmed by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray MSP, and who will serve on the Board for a period of four years.
Craig MacDonald, who has been appointed as a non-executive Board member, replaces Alastair Grant who left the Board on 31st July having completed his four-year term. In addition to her role as a non-executive Board member, Joni O’Sullivan will serve as the Board’s ‘Whistleblowing Champion’, replacing Kirstie MacDonald, who left her role shortly before the end of her term due to external work commitments.

————————

The article goes on with potted bios of the new board members. It notes that:

Joni O’Sullivan has a professional background in financial services, with extensive experience in culture change, employee engagement, community investment and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) at Lloyds Banking Group. She is now a strategic consultant, advising companies, charities and foundations. Joni is passionate about creating open, responsive and inclusive culture. She has previously worked for Business in the Community and advised the University of Oxford. She currently sits on the Board of the National Galleries of Scotland.

I would be very interested in the new board member’ onboarding
https://healthandcare.scot/stories/4209/nhs-fife-health-board-university-status

So that sounds like Fife are digging their heels in. FFS

Does he want to? Could he not have a good career as a professional spokesperson without the pesky need to treat sick people who won't agree with him? Lots and lots of affirmation to be had there...

Equality, diversity and inclusion policies can still be useful, they just have to get the law right.

Unfortunately it's been a very long time since EDI meant anything but 'trans'.

This is worth a look - https://www.lloydsbank.com/about-us/diversity-equity-and-inclusion.html#:~:text=Lloyds%20is%20building%20a%20bank%20that%20is,support%20to%20all%20LGBTQ+%20colleagues%20and%20allies. Guess who's BOTTOM of the list of people they look out for? I wonder if NHS Fife may be doing the cat thing. You know, when they fall off something, land ungracefully and then wash and act as if nothing ever happened or could have happened? I suspect there'll be a fair few places trying to do that.

I have a friend who works in HR for a large, well known arts organsation in London. Due to reorganisation, she was given the EDI remit and was inundated with staff suggesting new policies and practices for hiring more trans people and gay men.

She cause consternation by pointing out that both these groups were already over represented in their staff, and that the people who were significantly under represented were

women in senior roles
women from certain ethnic / cultural groups
people with with disabilities
people from working class backgrounds ( not a protected characteristic of course ) in skilled roles

You can imagine how well her evidemced based proposals were received ! They couldn’t take the remit away from her quick enough 😂

Just received this email from the Good Law Project:

Virgin Active was created as an inclusive gym where everyone was welcome. Now, after a legal threat from GB News presenter Michelle Dewberry, they’ve turned their back on trans people and enacted a changing room and bathroom ban.

Virgin says it’s because they’re following the law. But they’re not following the law, they’re just following transphobes. They’re falling into line behind Michelle Dewberry and Sex Matters. Will you take action and email Virgin Active?

It doesn’t matter what Sex Matters says: the Supreme Court judgment doesn’t force businesses to rip up their policies. The law hasn’t changed. The Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance is just that: guidance.

We need to show Virgin Active just how big our movement is. The more pressure we put on them, the harder it’ll be for them to ignore us and uphold their transphobic changing room and bathroom ban. It only takes five minutes.

It’s time for Virgin Active to stand on the right side of history, not with transphobes. Otherwise it’ll be time for us to take legal action.

In solidarity,
Agustina, Good Law Project

… which prompted me, finally, to unsubscribe from the mailing list. With very clear reasons why I’m leaving it.

'If we kick and scream long enough, they won't allow women anywhere to undress away from men. Prepare to spit dummies on three! One... two....'

I didn’t think they were excluding transpeople? If transpeople are self excluding because they don’t like the law, well we know that don’t matter because they told us so often enough/ that we should just toughen up

Oh the whole thing is a crock.

It's been absolutely fine to exclude women
It's not the case that men with gender identities are being excluded, they're just not allowed to remove women-only facilities from women who need them
The law hasn't changed, men never had the right to remove and invade these facilities
There is no human right or inclusion right for men to be with non consenting undressing women
If it's toilets and changing rooms then it's prisons and hospitals and strip searches, as proven by the destruction testing of the GRA and Stonewall law

But Major Tom's out of reach of Ground Control, will never be able to hear or understand any of this, and the only answer is the way organisations have to handle vexatious complainants with various issues preventing them being able to understand or accept anything other than what they want.

For pity's sake. The Virgin Active gym near me has open changing rooms (well, maybe a few family cubicles). The rest is all "bays" created by rows of lockers. No doors. There is NO WAY that is a suitable mixed-sex setup.

If anyone needs a hit of Naomi, there is a new tribunal starting on Monday.

Kelly - Leonardo UK

Naomi Cunningham is representing Ms Kelly.

I started a thread with details of how to apply.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?reply=147384281

The Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance is just that: guidance

Since he is a barrister, Jolyon Maugham really ought to know better.

If it was guidance, it would be statutory guidance. That means those to whom it is directed are required by law to follow it. They can deviate from it where they judge, on admissible grounds, that there is good reason to do so, but they cannot take a substantially different course.

However, it won't be guidance, despite the fact it is repeatedly referred to as such. It will be a statutory code of practice.

So no, it is not "just" guidance. It is much more than that.

The Good Law Project is wildly misnamed (but we already knew that).

That was all going so well till your last sentence 😬

@Easytoconfuse wrote

This is worth a look - https://www.lloydsbank.com/about-us/diversity-equity-and-inclusion.html#:~:text=Lloyds%20is%20building%20a%20bank%20that%20is,support%20to%20all%20LGBTQ+%20colleagues%20and%20allies. Guess who's BOTTOM of the list of people they look out for? I wonder if NHS Fife may be doing the cat thing. You know, when they fall off something, land ungracefully and then wash and act as if nothing ever happened or could have happened? I suspect there'll be a fair few places trying to do that.

I see your point about the order of the list but have you noticed which category isn’t listed at all - Sex, specifically disadvantage to the female sex.

Am I right to say that the dear man is a tax barrister? So his expertise, as shown by his track record may not be very, how shall I say this, expert! It amazes me how people keep funding him despite it, but then I'm one of those pesky people who prefer evidence to ideals.

But Jane Russell is an employment law KC and her record to date is not very successful.

He was initially a practitioner in tax law. However, having checked the Barristers' Register, I see that he is no longer registered and so is not authorised to practice. I should therefore have used the past tense when referring to him as a barrister.

HMRC might disagree!