Page 34 | NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #55

nauticant · 2025-11-19T22:05:29+00:00

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: EmploymentTribunalEnquiriesScotland@justice.gov.uk The hearing was live tweeted by [[https://x.com/tribunaltweets x.com/tribunaltweets]] and there's additional information here: [[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005]] and [[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6 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: [[https://www.archive.ph/WSSjg archive.ph/WSSjg]]. An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: [[https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets nitter.net/tribunaltweets]] or [[https://www.nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets]] Links to previous threads #1 to #50 can be found in this thread: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards 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 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: [[https://www.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 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: [[https://www.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 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]] 3 September to 1 October 2025 Thread 54: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-54 mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-54]] from 28 September 2025

Conxis · 08/12/2025 13:37

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 13:31

Yes - I think we are going to need more senior courts and tribunals to be braver in this than first instance ET.

I wonder if Sandie will appeal?

I think the finding that not booting Upton out the ladies when Sandie complained is pretty significant. Well done Sandie.

Show quote history

Although they’ve said no-one else complained, they also seem to be saying Fife should have removed Upton when Sandie first complained?
This is very good news going forward, one voice should be enough

ProfessorBinturong · 08/12/2025 13:37

"Due to the length of the judgment and the fact the legal team only received it this morning at 10am, we will not be in a position to make substantive comments on it today and will do so later this week."

They agreed 5 days. I'm certain of it

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 08/12/2025 13:38

ProfessorBettyBooper · 08/12/2025 13:33

This is worrying:

f) Refusing to guarantee that men or R2 would not be permitted to
use the women’s changing room in its A&E department;

The first respondent did refuse to guarantee that men or the second respondent would not be permitted to use the female changing room. The claimant believed that the first respondent should have given that guarantee. From our analysis of the law above there is no legal requirement under the Act that all trans women be excluded, or that the second respondent be excluded, from such a facility at work'

It is also legally wrong I think

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 13:38

Skipping on to later parts of the judgment, 629 - comments on the witnesses, DrU is taken as a more credible and reliable witness than SP. His calm demeanour in giving evidence is noted...
And all Fife's witnesses seem to have been credible and reliable too.

OverlyFragrant · 08/12/2025 13:39

ProfessorBinturong · 08/12/2025 13:36

Were we watching the same trial?!

Show quote history

That would be SPs racism coming home to haunt her

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 08/12/2025 13:39

It's interesting it's a win for Sandie, but there also seems to be a lot wrong with the judgement - it will be interesting to see if there is enough legally wrong to appeal

MyrtleLion · 08/12/2025 13:39

Borwick's evidence (IT analyst for Sandie) considered to have some unreliability due to not being impartial (para 659) but overall reliable on the creation date for the notes (662).

ProfessorBinturong · 08/12/2025 13:39

ProfessorBettyBooper · 08/12/2025 13:33

This is worrying:

f) Refusing to guarantee that men or R2 would not be permitted to
use the women’s changing room in its A&E department;

The first respondent did refuse to guarantee that men or the second respondent would not be permitted to use the female changing room. The claimant believed that the first respondent should have given that guarantee. From our analysis of the law above there is no legal requirement under the Act that all trans women be excluded, or that the second respondent be excluded, from such a facility at work'

Looks like an appeal ground to me.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/12/2025 13:40

ProfessorBinturong · 08/12/2025 13:37

"Due to the length of the judgment and the fact the legal team only received it this morning at 10am, we will not be in a position to make substantive comments on it today and will do so later this week."

They agreed 5 days. I'm certain of it

I thought so too

Chariothorses · 08/12/2025 13:40

Not impressed by judgement at 1st glance. Nor by the BBC using a soft focus photo of Upton to try and pretend he doesn't look like the bloke he is.

ProfessorBinturong · 08/12/2025 13:41

OverlyFragrant · 08/12/2025 13:39

That would be SPs racism coming home to haunt her

Show quote history

Says nothing about her reliability. Unlike hiding and photoshopping evidence.

As for the other Fife witnesses being credible...

Boiledbeetle · 08/12/2025 13:42

ProfessorIDareSay · 08/12/2025 13:15

"1187. The claimant also argued that even if a single sex changing room was not required by law, the first respondent had chosen to confer that on its female staff and by allowing the second respondent to use it the effect was to withdraw that benefit from all the female staff who used the changing room. In our view there is a flaw in that argument. Not all female staff did consider it that way, as only the claimant complained, as we have described. The only evidence we heard from a witness on this directly was the claimant herself, and others who gave evidence contradicted her. In this regard the claimant is in our view seeking to speak for all female staff, but there is no evidence we regard as reliable entitling her to do so. "

Here we go again....

For fucks sake!. At least the Darlo judge won't be able to use that one!

It shouldn't matter if its one woman complaining about the man in the women's changing room or 200 women.

One woman upset, distressed, scared or just bloody pissed off that a man is in there is one woman too many.

And given the way Sandie was treated of course none of the other women were going to complain.

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 13:42

...and there are a couple of comments suggesting that poor DrU had been given a hard time by NC
700. There were some rather unusual questions asked in cross examination, for example Ms Cunningham asked a question seeking to compare the second respondent to the torturer in the novel 1984, to which objection was taken and after the lunch adjournment but before a decision on that was made it was withdrawn. It ought not to have been asked, but does indicate the extent to which the second respondent’s position was challenged in cross examination.

NebulousProfessorSupportPostcard · 08/12/2025 13:43

ProfessorBinturong · 08/12/2025 13:37

"Due to the length of the judgment and the fact the legal team only received it this morning at 10am, we will not be in a position to make substantive comments on it today and will do so later this week."

They agreed 5 days. I'm certain of it

From TT:

NC When you hand down judgement would be very helpful to have notice of hand down date and embargoed copy of judgment a few days before made public. At least some notice.

J Will need to check with President. How many days would you like?

NC Five please. [all agree]

MyrtleLion · 08/12/2025 13:43

Paras 672-679 agree that DU did not make contemporaneous notes but that it was fine and not a deliberate attempt to deceive!

Signalbox · 08/12/2025 13:43

Holy shit, how did they come to this conclusion?

"The second respondent was we considered a credible and broadly a
reliable witness. The second respondent was cross examined over a
period of three days, with questions asked referring continually to the
second respondent as a man, which the second respondent considers
misgendering and offensive, and in other contexts could be held to be
harassment under the Act. The cross examination went to the heart of how
the second respondent held a sense of identity. In the context of the
present dispute that was legitimate cross examination but we noted that
the second respondent was affected by that, even if there was a clear
attempt not to show that.

"The second respondent answered all the questions in a calm and
considered manner. The suggestions included that the second respondent
was seeking to punish the claimant for standing up for her beliefs, to
paraphrase a series of questions. They were all denied in entirely
convincing terms. They were also supported by the written material. For
example, in relation to the 18 December 2023 incident the second
respondent wrote specifically in the document headed “Hate Incident
25/12/23” that that was “not a patient safety issue” and in the last sentence
the second respondent made clear that what was sought was an apology
and arrangements to ensure that it was not repeated such as changing
shift arrangements. That is not in our view the action of someone seeking
to punish the claimant, or have her dismissed, or struck off by the NMC,
as was the claimant’s argument. Nor is the failure to record at the time,
and raise at the time, the incident on 31 October 2023."

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/12/2025 13:43

If you fall off a roof because your employer hasn’t provided the correct equipment, it isn’t less of a liability for them because their legal team dug up some WhatsApp messages that make you look bad.

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 13:44

Key messages:

we need the EHRC guidance on employment updated ASAP
every time you see a person of the opposite sex in your facilities, complain.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/12/2025 13:44

Is he deliberately passing it up the line?

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 08/12/2025 13:45

ProfessorBinturong · 08/12/2025 13:36

Were we watching the same trial?!

Show quote history

Agree

That anyone would believe Upton over Sandie, after his behaviour in court and everything that transpired, is mind-blowing

Either that or it's just good old plain sexism

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/12/2025 13:45

Signalbox · 08/12/2025 13:43

Holy shit, how did they come to this conclusion?

"The second respondent was we considered a credible and broadly a
reliable witness. The second respondent was cross examined over a
period of three days, with questions asked referring continually to the
second respondent as a man, which the second respondent considers
misgendering and offensive, and in other contexts could be held to be
harassment under the Act. The cross examination went to the heart of how
the second respondent held a sense of identity. In the context of the
present dispute that was legitimate cross examination but we noted that
the second respondent was affected by that, even if there was a clear
attempt not to show that.

"The second respondent answered all the questions in a calm and
considered manner. The suggestions included that the second respondent
was seeking to punish the claimant for standing up for her beliefs, to
paraphrase a series of questions. They were all denied in entirely
convincing terms. They were also supported by the written material. For
example, in relation to the 18 December 2023 incident the second
respondent wrote specifically in the document headed “Hate Incident
25/12/23” that that was “not a patient safety issue” and in the last sentence
the second respondent made clear that what was sought was an apology
and arrangements to ensure that it was not repeated such as changing
shift arrangements. That is not in our view the action of someone seeking
to punish the claimant, or have her dismissed, or struck off by the NMC,
as was the claimant’s argument. Nor is the failure to record at the time,
and raise at the time, the incident on 31 October 2023."

Edited

He literally admitted that everything SP said would have been wrong 🤪

MrsKeats · 08/12/2025 13:46

So what happens now then?

Boiledbeetle · 08/12/2025 13:46

ProfessorBinturong · 08/12/2025 13:36

Were we watching the same trial?!

Show quote history

It seems not.

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 13:47

Signalbox · 08/12/2025 13:43

Holy shit, how did they come to this conclusion?

"The second respondent was we considered a credible and broadly a
reliable witness. The second respondent was cross examined over a
period of three days, with questions asked referring continually to the
second respondent as a man, which the second respondent considers
misgendering and offensive, and in other contexts could be held to be
harassment under the Act. The cross examination went to the heart of how
the second respondent held a sense of identity. In the context of the
present dispute that was legitimate cross examination but we noted that
the second respondent was affected by that, even if there was a clear
attempt not to show that.

"The second respondent answered all the questions in a calm and
considered manner. The suggestions included that the second respondent
was seeking to punish the claimant for standing up for her beliefs, to
paraphrase a series of questions. They were all denied in entirely
convincing terms. They were also supported by the written material. For
example, in relation to the 18 December 2023 incident the second
respondent wrote specifically in the document headed “Hate Incident
25/12/23” that that was “not a patient safety issue” and in the last sentence
the second respondent made clear that what was sought was an apology
and arrangements to ensure that it was not repeated such as changing
shift arrangements. That is not in our view the action of someone seeking
to punish the claimant, or have her dismissed, or struck off by the NMC,
as was the claimant’s argument. Nor is the failure to record at the time,
and raise at the time, the incident on 31 October 2023."

Edited

I'm trying to be objective, but it reads as if DrU could do no wrong.
Even making up professional misconduct accusations against SP seems to be explained away.

In fairness, I think SP's racist 'jokes' are referred to as being irrelevant to the facts of the case, though I only skimmed over that bit.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 08/12/2025 13:47

MyrtleLion · 08/12/2025 13:43

Paras 672-679 agree that DU did not make contemporaneous notes but that it was fine and not a deliberate attempt to deceive!

Not making contemporaneous notes but claiming to have done so (even going so far to be snippy to NC about understanding the mean of the word ) was not a deliberate attempt to deceive? Really? Especially when NHSFife seemed to give weight to the fact this his notes were more accurate because they were indeed contemporaneous?