NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #54

[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
Thread 53: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5404208-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-53 from 3 September

I haven't had a chance to read it yet but I'm assuming it's essentially "we wants it, the precious".

I fear it may be important to see what loons have to say even if they are loons; they might make a reasonable argument by accident.

Sorry to hear that, Myrtle. I hope they fix you quickly!

Sorry to hear you’re poorly, Myrtle, that’s tough. Get well soon

Bloody hell, the most important thing is that you get well soon! Hope you are getting decent treatment and have a quiet room/bay/ward and ability to get enough sleep.

I'm in a bay of six women, one of whom is very shouty and angry and kicks the staff. I bought some noise cancelling earplugs but they have got lost so I've had to buy some more today. Inhale surgery on 12 August and one of the wounds became infected so I was admitted a week ago.

I then had surgery on Friday and was scheduled for more surgery today which was delayed and then cancelled. Waiting to hear when it will be.

It's not at all great here.

JR's argument in the supplemental case is a trans woman is different to a man because a trans woman presents as a woman.

Lipstick, long hair etc and behold! womanhood! Except Upton couldn't wear lipstick in hospital, so it's just long hair, like the very male physiotherapist who visits me daily. Ummmm.

TWAM ("trans women are men") may be a judicial fact, and not a belief. (It's not clear from Forstater that that is what the judge said, but let's roll with it.) The protected belief is then that the fact that TWAM is important to the way we live our lives, relevant in all circumstances, and that sex overrides self-identified gender in deciding whether to treat someone as a man or woman.

@MyrtleLion take care of yourself. 💐

I find it too difficult to read the respondents submissions.

it is so ridiculous and such a misinterpretation of everything within logic, and jurisprudence.

because when you boil it all down it is simple, the question being should women be compelled to undress in front of a men who says or believe they are a women.

and even if Sandie could have gone to the basement changing room, there would be no guarantee a man would not insert himself there.

the answer has to be no, and the judges interpretations of the law will go around the houses and back again to say NO, i am very sure of that.

It may matter what Sandies pay out might be, in terms of putting of employers from being that inclusive,

But i doubt Sandie gives a shit about that, she gave away our funding efforts.

Very sorry to hear that, @MyrtleLion. Sending infection-zapping thoughts your way.

The Translucent submission says (para.6) "Translucent regards FWS as having been wrongly decided in the Supreme Court."

So they're running the "five Supreme Court Justices including the President and Deputy President don't know the law" argument. Which is bold.

Aargh. Sorry to hear this - hope you get the surgery. Please let us know how you get on 💐

Hospital wards are Not Fun

I hope you get better soon and are sent home as soon as possible @MyrtleLion

The Translucent submission says (para.6) "Translucent regards FWS as having been wrongly decided in the Supreme Court."

The tribunal would be bound by the decision even if it was wrongly decided

You're absolutely right. The entire court, ALL the SC judges agreed.

And then they're saying it's only the Equality Act, not everything else. And then they're saying that the EqAct uses different terms. Yet that's what the SC determined: the terms all boil down to man and woman meaning biological sex. The submission says the SC didn't define biological sex, except it did - sex as determined at birth.

They seem to think that saying the SC got it wrong and TWAW and the ruling only applies to the EqAct and nothing else will make it so.

It's the stamping the foot saying it's not fair, form of legal argument.

Do they really think for one second that a court is going to disagree with the highest court in the land?

Certainly not, and let me add my good wishes for a quick and full recovery, Myrtle.

TBF, Translucent aren't only claiming that FWS was wrongly decided.

They are also arguing that it doesn't say what it says it says, and anyway it doesn't apply, and anyway we don't like it, and here's 8 pages of stuff that's 20 years out of date but makes this look long enough that we can charge for it. Also we're being genocided.

I think I need a pause and stiff drink before tackling the other 2 docs.

Good on you for trying i would not bother myself as it has no legal value

I see a bunch of logical flaws in JR's supplemental submission too, but I want to think them through before writing about them. Curious to see if anyone else spots the same ones.

I haven't quite understood all of the arguments JR is making, but the whole "if you find for SP, then her belief isn't a belief, it's a fact" had me nodding, yes! That's the fucking point. It is a fact.

Haven't finished reading yet but am wondering how Upton is feeling about the apparent step down from TWAW to TWATW

Sad times :/

I believe the earth's shape approximates to an oblate spheroid. That is also a fact. I also believe JR's argument amounts to nothing.

I can’t post what I “regard” “Translucent” as as it would assuredly be in contravention of talk guidelines.

From supplemental submission, JR is shouting R1's quiet bit about R2 out loud.
"requiring Dr Upton to use a
different space would have resulted in “othering” her which may have resulted
in harassment and discrimination claims because of the protected characteristic
of gender reassignment. There was little else the First Respondent could do in
the circumstances."