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

[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 3 September to 1 October 2025
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

I also noted with some concern the multiple instances of language 'assigned at birth' or 'assigned shortly after birth' rather than 'observed at birth' which is what actually happens.

Bairns already have their sex long before birth (determined at conception), it's no needing assigned, simply to be observed and recorded.

No wonder they left it to the pre-Christmas period to post this judgment, when they hope people won't be able to find them and point out how absurd it is. But we can wait, Sandy!

This judge is a coward. Happy to state as a fact that Sandie is female (para 55) but only prepared to say that Upton was provided a birth certificate stating sex as make shortly after birth as if somehow his birth certificate incorrectly states his sex.

Not only is Upton a man, he’s an abusive, manipulative and disordered one. I don’t want men like him in women’s spaces.

The law helps male abusers. It wouldn't take much with judges like this to get us to Afghanistan. Fortunately for women, UK public opinion is against the entire erosion and dismantling of women's rights and child safeguarding but far far too many judges are in favour. It's just the judiciary and the ruling classes that want women - working class women in particular - to be abused.

I mean it's that simple, it's enabling abuse and coercive control. This judge should hang his head in shame.

To the contrary the Judge is very brave for withstanding the force of the mob. I commend them.

I haven't read the judgement (300 pages!) but based on what you all have said here, I'm disappointed but not surprised. The good part is that NHS Fife got told off. The rest, well, privileged blokes all sticking together and seeing women as partially-sentient support bipeds.

I’m cautiously declaring this a ‘for the best’ outcome - appeals court was necessary for Forstater.

Of course, this only works if SP has access to the funds to appeal, so if a crowdfunder is necessary, I’m in.

For what?

If he looked like a woman how come an old lady with dementia kept calling him son?

This problem cannot be solved by leaving individual women to upend their lives, fundraise to take court cases and then endure cross-examination and public scrutiny – all simply to win back what was a right that was beyond question until recently, and which most people still support.

As SM rightly says...

Well here's the first test for the new chair of the EHRC

judge has used wrong comparator - is she going to tell him?

I remember the fight Scottish lawyers put up against a proposed reform to the rape law that required women to fight back physically or it wasn't rape. I wonder what side Sandy was on?

I wouldn't bother puppy is well known derailer. They'll drag the thread off focus. It's not worth engaging

For dismissing most of SP's claims, notwithstanding the political pressure to uphold them.

The young canine is a Brave & Stunning True-Believing Righteous Warrior for The Right Side of History.

I imagine Sandie has backing to appeal, but she won’t be short of crowdfunding either.

So kind

those of you with legal knowledge such as @prh47bridge - i know that EATs can overturn and create precedent, how does it work if eg the MK v Leonardo appeal isn't successful but the SP v NHS Fife one is?

I've split this bit into bullets for clarity, and added my comments in []

the test the Tribunal concluded should be applied was one of objective justification,
derived from the Supreme Court decision in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2)
[2014] AC 700.
It considered that a number of factors required to be weighed in the balance including
1 the options that were available to the employer, [Their job is to make the correct, legally compliant options avaliable. You couldn't get around working at height regulations by saying 'Oh, we didn't have the correct safety harness available'.]
2 the extent to which the trans person had changed physiological attributes of sex, [No. Dead letter. Pre FWS, pre Haldane.]
3 how the trans person appeared to others, [see 2]
4 the extent to which there were complaints from other staff, [Nonsense. something doesn't become legal or illegal based on number of complaints]
5 what the employer knew
or ought to have known, [About what? They knew he was a man. They knew he was using the women's changing rooms. There may be some mitigating argument in the prevailing legal confusion before FWS, but that's only a partial excuse.
6 and what the options for use of facilities were. [This is a repeat of 1. Shoddy.]

At this point, Wes Streeting needs to wade into the fray.

Equally the HSE needs to take action against these hospitals for their failure to provide single sex spaces. It doesn’t seem the ET Judges want to go near it.

Again "no-one else complained" so there was no climate of fear.

Astonishing how being a half decent person is now something that is viewed by the masses as contemptible. This is how far prejudice has come.

I mean FFS

'In summary we rejected the claimant’s argument. The Supreme Court’s
decision has the conclusion that a trans woman is not a woman for the
purposes of sex under section 11. For a question of which changing room
to use that is not in our view determinative. The protected characteristic of
gender reassignment is not to be wholly disregarded as it is of equal status
to sex (as are the respective beliefs of the claimant and second
respondent). It may be lawful to grant permission to a trans person to use
the changing room that aligns with the sex and gender they identify as
having, dependent on the circumstances. Whether or not it was in relation
to the second respondent, and how that is to be determined, are separate
points which we address below.'

@prh47bridge would love to hear your thoughts.