NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56

[nauticant]

Judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6936ce28a6fc97b81e57436a/S_Peggie_v_Fife_Health_Board__Dr_Upton.pdf

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
Thread 55: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5447019-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-55

I’d say 42 calendar days

https://www.gov.uk/appeal-employment-appeal-tribunal

I clicked through to the appeal guidelines

The usual rule is that your notice of appeal and supporting documentation must be received complete by the EAT no later than 16:00 (4pm) on the 42nd day after the date on which the ET sent you a judgment or on the 42nd day after the date of any other order, decision or other direction.
The 42nd day will be the same day of the week, six weeks later.

But this whole case revolves around personal preferences when getting undressed. Are you saying that Sandie Peggie can't have personal preferences but you can?

Needs to be filed by 4pm on Monday 19 January 2026 by my reckoning

Right up there with having to tell my toddler that "we don't lick the bus".

@InvisibleDragon spoilsport.

I said as much to the HSE and they declined to comment and passed me on to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government of the United Kingdom. Waiting to hear back.

My personal view is that these cases are sufficiently different to mean I don't think they will be rolled into one at the EAT level, but it may happen if they both get to the Supreme Court.

I think you have also indulged in making demeaning personal comments, including calling me hateful.

It is inferrable though that you yourself don't have any privacy concerns about undressing in front of trans identifying men (who call themselves women.) Is that correct, or not?

You know you don't get to do that right?

You are literally advocating for women to be subjected to this.

We are entitled to call it out for what it is.

The fact that you consider discussing undressing in front of men 'sexually demeaning and an unnecessarily personal remark' but are prepared to call SP a bigot for refusing to actually do that in real life, makes you a hypocrite.

And we are entitled to call you out for it.

It seems to be the question that no-one can answer.

It’s not

Some one said to Dr Uptons biggest fan

I get it: you like to undress in front of men.

They said “I feel that was a sexually demeaning and unnecessarily personal remark. It wasn't even related to my post.”

Not the brightest light on the tree.

Seem to be experiencing cognitive dissonance as that’s what they’re advocating for.

@prh47bridge i will love to hear your analysis. As far as i can ascertain there is a number of points of law, that are up for challenge.

Not least the comparative male, Pete. Which the judge offered no alternative to.

And then there was the “only one complainant” concept, which obviously does not work against indirect discrimination of a group, ergo racial discrimination.

and then there was the assessment of credibilities of witnesses which was perverse because for the complainant it conflated bigotry and alleged transphobia.

to boot chuck in a few absurdities such as there is no convincing evidence that men in women's changing rooms are no more of a risk than women.

And the reference to article 8.

as i am not a barrister i have no idea how NC will approach her appeal

I ave a feeling that the EAT will not fancy this to much and come up with a marginally better fudge.

A it may well end up at the court of appeal.

Really hard to keep up with the threads and the understanding of it but how can a tribunal judge suggest there is still ambiguity in the Supreme Court ruling? That seems inappropriate.

No one ever gives a shit about how we feel when we are expected to strip in front of men.

Yet we are meant to care about truthful observations hurting their precious feelings? 🤔

I think SP has a case against KS and others regardless of whether Upton was credible.

Upton having been found to be credible by this tribunal does not necessarily mean that another tribunal has to find him credible if he is called to give evidence there. However, they will only want to go against this tribunal if they can differentiate Upton's evidence sufficiently. They can't overturn this tribunal's findings of fact as to what happened in the changing room.

Where's the brilliant news?

I do wonder whether this NEEDS to go to appeal.

First tier tribunal decisions are not legally binding.

An appeal to the EAT (employment appeals tribunals) can only happen on an error of fact or law, which I am fairly sure scan be established. An EAT decision is binding.

I am not commenting on whether the ambiguity of this judgement is deliberate or not, just that I think that an appeal is necessary and will be a good thing.

I have an excellent poster in my bathroom which reads "Stop riding that penguin. We're leaving"

It's here, but sadly only available in book form now, AFAICS https://www.momtastic.com/home/175721-words-to-make-you-smile-when-youre-knee-deep-in-life/

When it comes to the allocation of public facilities we have to balance a range of different needs.

So no, we can't really go around banning people from using facilities based on the "personal preferences" of others.

I think that sums up today’s entire thread with a big helping of

“I love Dr Upton. Women should get changed in front of men but also it’s sexually harassing to say I like getting changed in front of men.”

They were citing me. I didn't say 'you like' I said 'you're happy to'.

She's then said (after lots of to-ing and fro-ing') that her 'sexual preferences' are being discussed.

Hence, why is she linking changing rooms and sexual preferences together? She's the only one making that connection in the context it's being discussed.

Thank you for your patience!
I have tried to read the judgment but there is a LOT of caselaw and pasting of policies etc and it's late.
Some of the bits people have posted are hard to take in tbh. As mentioned I was particularly surprised by the dismissal of Pete for not being a "genuine" candidate for the GR PC as that surely opens a can of worms.

I didn't call you "hateful" I said a remark that you made to the effect that you didn't care about causing DU profound pain, expressed hate.

It did.

So no, no demeaning personal comments.

Yes, toilets and changing rooms should be the healthiest and safest designs. Which is why single sex designs were prioritised.

Sorry!

Maybe it’s Dr Upton and as his sexual preference is lesbian he is only really happy when changing in front of women

You have misrepresented me though. (Trying to get me banned?)

Pretty inflammatory behaviour on your part.