Page 30 | NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56

nauticant · 2025-12-08T13:52:18+00:00

*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 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: 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 Thread 55: [[https://www.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 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]]

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 23:28

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 23:15

Yet, with document T in England, all the toilets will have to change to enclosed designs with sinks, hand dryers etc in if single sex isn’t single sex. There’s no way Document T wasn’t based on sex.

That will cost the country and businesses a fortune.

Show quote history

The standard configuration already existed in all public buildings, space permitting, before a tiny percentage of the population demanded their own facilities, everywhere: a separate women's toilet, separate men's toilet, and an accessible toilet for disabled people.

So the buildings where single sex toilets [mostly the women's, it seems] were not ripped out and replaced with 'unisex' toilets are OK, they already meet the requirements of Doc T, no extra disruption or expense needed.

Unthinkingly following unfounded fads can be expensive.

SionnachRuadh · 08/12/2025 23:28

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 23:18

The judge seems to be very happy to be categorical about things like the credibility of certain witnesses, but freely admits that the tribunal can't decide between the possibility that transwomen are, or are not, 'women' as far as the 1994 Workplace regs are concerned, in light of the SC ruling.

That's a pretty basic element in the case, it's odd that it can just be dismissed as outside the competency of the tribunal... but let's carry on regardless.

860. There are arguments both for and against the claimant’s position that the same approach should be followed, and for and against the respondents’ position that a definition of women which is inclusive of those who are trans women is appropriate in order to construe the 1992 Regulations consistently with Article 8. In our view these arguments are not ones that we can competently address.
[my emphasis]

Show quote history

That last sentence is the key point, isn't it? The SC has ruled on what the definitions mean in respect of the Equality Act, but as to whether the same interpretation applies to the Workplace Regs - it seems to me obvious that it should, but I can also see why a first-tier employment tribunal would want to kick it upstairs to a higher court.

I suspect that eventually these cases will all go similar ways - it doesn't make sense to have wildly different rules for employers and service providers, nor does it make sense to have wildly different rules for changing rooms and toilets. But getting there will be like pulling teeth.

And we'll still have to deal with scofflaws in authority like the Scottish Government and the NHS and Bristol City Council and half of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

WearyAuldWumman · 08/12/2025 23:29

The first time I came across this cartoon, I was new to the internet.

Ah. Can't post it. Never mind.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 08/12/2025 23:30

I'm late to the party again.

Is it possible Big Sond knew that this was over his head really and needs to go to a higher court, hence the decision today?

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 08/12/2025 23:32

InvisibleDragon · 08/12/2025 22:41

I have a question about the 1992 Workplace regs and the SC judgement in FWS. (Wow, there's a sentence I never thought I'd write. Right up there with having to tell my toddler that "we don't lick the bus".)

So ...

In both this and the Leonardo case, the judge has been hesitant to say that the SC judgement requires workplace facilities (toilets or changing rooms) to be single sex, because FWS spoke only to the Equality Act. And the 1992 Workplace regulations are a different bit of legislation. Is that right?

However, there are also situations where the EA would apply in a workplace changing room, no? For example, if there was a dispute about a trans woman using the female toilets but other men not being allowed to. FWS established that the comparator in the EA for a trans woman, irrespective of GRC status (eg a male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) is a man without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. So if employers want to exclude men from designated female facilities, this needs to be on the basis of sex, otherwise they are open to discrimination claims on this basis.

My question is why does this not apply in the NHS Fife context? The judgement said that there was merit to both the claimant and respondent interpretations of who should be in what room. But this doesn't make sense. In theory, NHS Fife could have provided mixed or single occupancy changing facilities. Or something. But they didn't. They had separate facilities used by men and women. Given that they did that, what is the reasoning that the FWS judgement can't be extrapolated to the 1992 Workplace regs? It feels really bizarre.

The problem is not just that EA2010 and WR1992 are two separate bits of legislation. It's that EA2010 says employers are exempt from any liability under EA2010 if they are doing something mandated by another piece of legislation. EA2010 is off the table: the only question is whether WR1992 has been correctly applied.

Of course this makes sense, but what do you do if WR1992 is being interpreted in a way that would be sex-discrimination if it was covered by EA2010? Should this be excused? (And what's the point in having an exemption from liability if it doesn't actually exempt something?)

Or maybe it means WR1992 isn't being properly followed, in which case EA2010 kicks back in again (you lost your exemption!). But EA2010 doesn't have anything about workplace toilets - no Schedule 3 type provision - so all I've done now is prove that workplace toilets are illegal because sex-segregation is discrimination anyway. Shurely some mistake .

All I can do is throw myself right back on WR1992 and the 'other enactment' exemption. But now I'm right back where I started. It's legislation by m c escher

Obviously I've gone wrong somewhere, but why didn't Kemp J have a stab at this? It's driving me nuts.

Boiledbeetle · 08/12/2025 23:32

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 23:21

I don't think I'm a saint. I don't think I behave a fraction as badly as many on this board- who have shown themselves capable of relentless and unrestrained bullying.

Im not interested in discussing my undressing preferences or to have personal arguments.

I believe that trans people should be allowed to make decisions about which toilets and changers to use as they always have.

Edited

Show quote history

And I believe men should not be in the women's changing room.

Neither of us is going to change our position. But, when you don't engage with the reality of what you are advocating for then don't be surprised if different people query you on it.

Refusing to answer a question directly related to the position you are advocating for, and is basically a very simple question, will result in lots of people thinking you haven't thought through your position completely and questioning you on that.

That is not "relentless and unrestrained bullying".

That is how this board works. Person A says x persons B C and D say you what now? Person A refuses to engage and accuses people of x, y and z. People refute or re-query.

And on it goes.

Hedgehogsrightsarehumanrights · 08/12/2025 23:35

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 08/12/2025 23:30

I'm late to the party again.

Is it possible Big Sond knew that this was over his head really and needs to go to a higher court, hence the decision today?

Yes i think so, but also he is in Scotland, and as a result, he had to come up with some kinda omelette judgement.

Skyellaskerry · 08/12/2025 23:36

@prh47bridge I know I’m straying here but I was curious about the precursor laws to the 1992 regs, specifically wondering about references to male/female or man/woman.

If I’ve understood my limited research correctly, 1992 regs primarily replaced provisions of older laws such as the Factories Act 1961.

clause 7 states “Sufficient and suitable sanitary conveniences for the persons employed in the factory shall be provided, maintained and kept clean, and effective provision shall be made for lighting them and, where persons of both sexes are or are intended to be employed (except in the case of factories where the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there) the conveniences shall afford proper separate accommodation for persons of each sex.”

Clarity in 1961 that the meaning is sex specific. And in 1992, there would have been no confusion in using man and woman, but seeing where we are now, what a pity the 1992 regs didn’t use the same language as in the Factories Act when talking about workplace facilities.

I’ll now resurface from the wee rabbit hole I’ve been down …just thought it was interesting.

SionnachRuadh · 08/12/2025 23:36

I'll just say, if I were Big Sond, I would have looked at the points of law under dispute and I'd have said, Feck this, my tribunal hisnae the competency to decide these questions, that's what we pay the judicial heidyins for.

I wouldn't have taken 300 pages to say it but.

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 23:36

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 08/12/2025 23:32

The problem is not just that EA2010 and WR1992 are two separate bits of legislation. It's that EA2010 says employers are exempt from any liability under EA2010 if they are doing something mandated by another piece of legislation. EA2010 is off the table: the only question is whether WR1992 has been correctly applied.

Of course this makes sense, but what do you do if WR1992 is being interpreted in a way that would be sex-discrimination if it was covered by EA2010? Should this be excused? (And what's the point in having an exemption from liability if it doesn't actually exempt something?)

Or maybe it means WR1992 isn't being properly followed, in which case EA2010 kicks back in again (you lost your exemption!). But EA2010 doesn't have anything about workplace toilets - no Schedule 3 type provision - so all I've done now is prove that workplace toilets are illegal because sex-segregation is discrimination anyway. Shurely some mistake .

All I can do is throw myself right back on WR1992 and the 'other enactment' exemption. But now I'm right back where I started. It's legislation by m c escher

Obviously I've gone wrong somewhere, but why didn't Kemp J have a stab at this? It's driving me nuts.

Show quote history

The problem is not just that EA2010 and WR1992 are two separate bits of legislation. It's that EA2010 says employers are exempt from any liability under EA2010 if they are doing something mandated by another piece of legislation. EA2010 is off the table: the only question is whether WR1992 has been correctly applied.

This is so interesting. Why was no one talking about this before ?

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 08/12/2025 23:37

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 19:44

It is much worse than an insult to DU.

Show quote history

Frankly, that's his problem, not any of ours.

We aren't responsible for him feeling upset about being called a man, or described as looking like the man that he is.

You are the living embodiment of Rules One, Two, Three, and Eight.

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 23:37

ScrollingLeaves · 08/12/2025 23:27

In a written judgment on Monday, the tribunal upheld Peggie’s harassment claim against the health board but dismissed other claims. It also dismissed the nurse’s claim against Upton, whose evidence was held to be “more reliable and materially more cohesive in nature”.

I find this troubling. I have not listened to the tribunal but from experience generally I woukd say that of course a British doctor, with the likely education Upton would have had through school and university, would most likely be more fluent, able to plan coherent arguments set in an order which clearly expresses what he intends to convey, and be altogether more accomplished at speaking, than a nurse is likely to be.

It sound all sound more reliable.

She should not have had to speak at all. It should be so simple. TW need their own space, but TWANW. If a changing room is single sex an actual woman should not have to beg for it to be single sex, get speech and drama coaching, then need a £million court case about it. This is all so senseless.

It also dismissed the nurse’s claim against Upton, whose evidence was held to be “more reliable and materially more cohesive in nature”.

The really astonishing thing is that anybody, let alone a judge, could find more reliable the evidence of a witness who is a male doctor who believes he is an actual biological woman.

It's often said that if somebody lies to you about one thing, everything else they say has to be double and treble checked for veracity.

But when somebody appears not to be lying, as is the case with DrU, but to actually believe something as impossible as a human changing their biological sex - that's a whole order of magnitude more disturbing.

It suggests they have their own version of reality which is not supported by fact, and that may make their evidence cohesive - because they 100% believe their own reality - but hardly reliable.

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 23:40

SionnachRuadh · 08/12/2025 23:28

That last sentence is the key point, isn't it? The SC has ruled on what the definitions mean in respect of the Equality Act, but as to whether the same interpretation applies to the Workplace Regs - it seems to me obvious that it should, but I can also see why a first-tier employment tribunal would want to kick it upstairs to a higher court.

I suspect that eventually these cases will all go similar ways - it doesn't make sense to have wildly different rules for employers and service providers, nor does it make sense to have wildly different rules for changing rooms and toilets. But getting there will be like pulling teeth.

And we'll still have to deal with scofflaws in authority like the Scottish Government and the NHS and Bristol City Council and half of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Show quote history

it seems to me obvious that it should

I don't think it's obvious at all. In reaching their judgement the SC took into account the entire context of the EA, including the provisions/
protections related to gender reassignment.
It was not a blanket - "this is what the words woman, sex etc mean" universally/ full stop across all legislation. It was - this is the specific meaning of these works in this specific text given its full context,

NotBadConsidering · 08/12/2025 23:47

But getting there will be like pulling teeth.

As long as there are men determined to get into women’s spaces, and others determined to support them to do it, then yes, like medieval dentistry.

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 23:49

3 options.

Single sex are single sex
Single sex toilets and changing rooms are mixed sex but use single sex designs. Voyeurism laws have to change. Building Standards, building regs, 1974 and 1992 legislation and the Sexual Offenses Act has to be modified. No risk assessments and EIA done because it would make this option null and void.
Single sex toilets all become mixed sex designs. Costs a fortune. Less provision. Discrimination against certain disabilities, religions, age, sex. Less healthy and less safe toilet designs for everyone (scientifically proven). No risk assessments and EIA done because it would make this option null and void.

Thems your choices.

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 23:49

Right, we know what the problem is - logic tells us that if 'sex' means biological sex in one piece of legislation, it must mean biological sex in all other legislation and regulations.

However, logic doesn't count for much, obviously,

So please, can somebody explain what needs to be done to harmonise the definition across all legislation for once and for all?

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 23:54

Skyellaskerry · 08/12/2025 23:36

@prh47bridge I know I’m straying here but I was curious about the precursor laws to the 1992 regs, specifically wondering about references to male/female or man/woman.

If I’ve understood my limited research correctly, 1992 regs primarily replaced provisions of older laws such as the Factories Act 1961.

clause 7 states “Sufficient and suitable sanitary conveniences for the persons employed in the factory shall be provided, maintained and kept clean, and effective provision shall be made for lighting them and, where persons of both sexes are or are intended to be employed (except in the case of factories where the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there) the conveniences shall afford proper separate accommodation for persons of each sex.”

Clarity in 1961 that the meaning is sex specific. And in 1992, there would have been no confusion in using man and woman, but seeing where we are now, what a pity the 1992 regs didn’t use the same language as in the Factories Act when talking about workplace facilities.

I’ll now resurface from the wee rabbit hole I’ve been down …just thought it was interesting.

Look at BS6465 at the time of the 1992 legislation too. Thats what legislators would have been using for toilet standards. It all falls down if single sex isn’t single sex.

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 08/12/2025 23:54

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 23:36

The problem is not just that EA2010 and WR1992 are two separate bits of legislation. It's that EA2010 says employers are exempt from any liability under EA2010 if they are doing something mandated by another piece of legislation. EA2010 is off the table: the only question is whether WR1992 has been correctly applied.

This is so interesting. Why was no one talking about this before ?

Show quote history

Either because my reasoning is faulty, or because everyone preferred to do what they actually did, which was to argue for their desired outcome without explaining how it works legally.

So, TRAs say EA2010 doesn't apply: end of. So it's back to the trans-inclusive default for everything else.

GC say WR1992 must be interpreted in line with Schedule 3 because its objectives must surely be the same as the PMoAaLA underpinning Schedule 3, which is sex-based, whatever it is.

SionnachRuadh · 08/12/2025 23:55

But at least the direction of travel is clear. There are some ingenious lawyers sitting in our courts, but I think there's an obvious problem if the Supreme Court says "woman" means "biologically female" in respect of the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (and, I suggest, directly related legislation like the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976)...

...and then you try to argue that, when it comes to the 1992 Workplace Regulations, "woman" is a fuzzy category that includes male transvestites. The SC has explained quite exhaustively that you can't have provisions that bill themselves as single sex but which are de facto mixed sex.

Also, as noted, the Workplace Regs do not belong to the EHRC but to the HSE, so whatever Bridget Phillipson thinks she's playing at, there is nothing preventing Pat McFadden from clarifying what the Regs mean.

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 23:55

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 23:49

Right, we know what the problem is - logic tells us that if 'sex' means biological sex in one piece of legislation, it must mean biological sex in all other legislation and regulations.

However, logic doesn't count for much, obviously,

So please, can somebody explain what needs to be done to harmonise the definition across all legislation for once and for all?

Nothing. The Supreme Court did that.

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 23:55

Boiledbeetle · 08/12/2025 23:32

And I believe men should not be in the women's changing room.

Neither of us is going to change our position. But, when you don't engage with the reality of what you are advocating for then don't be surprised if different people query you on it.

Refusing to answer a question directly related to the position you are advocating for, and is basically a very simple question, will result in lots of people thinking you haven't thought through your position completely and questioning you on that.

That is not "relentless and unrestrained bullying".

That is how this board works. Person A says x persons B C and D say you what now? Person A refuses to engage and accuses people of x, y and z. People refute or re-query.

And on it goes.

Show quote history

No , it's not that I'm not willing to engage in "the reality" of what I'm advocating (although the "reality" that you see , is very different to what I see- I believe your "reality" to be completely warped).

But this conversation didn't start with a discussion or reasonable question.

This conversation started with a pp saying: "we get it, you like to undress in front of men", which wasn't even relevant in the context.

When I objected, a whole pile of posters doubled-down on repeating similar and refusing to respect my request not to be subject to personal and demeaning comments about what I like when getting undressed.

There are absolutely several relentless bullies on this thread whose intentions are only to humiliate and berate. Sometimes it amazes me still that adults behave like this- but I guess that's the shield of being behind a keyboard!

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 23:56

SionnachRuadh · 08/12/2025 23:55

But at least the direction of travel is clear. There are some ingenious lawyers sitting in our courts, but I think there's an obvious problem if the Supreme Court says "woman" means "biologically female" in respect of the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (and, I suggest, directly related legislation like the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976)...

...and then you try to argue that, when it comes to the 1992 Workplace Regulations, "woman" is a fuzzy category that includes male transvestites. The SC has explained quite exhaustively that you can't have provisions that bill themselves as single sex but which are de facto mixed sex.

Also, as noted, the Workplace Regs do not belong to the EHRC but to the HSE, so whatever Bridget Phillipson thinks she's playing at, there is nothing preventing Pat McFadden from clarifying what the Regs mean.

The SC has explained quite exhaustively that you can't have provisions that bill themselves as single sex but which are de facto mixed sex.

can you please reference the text of this?
And could you not just bill your facility as - eg - for women (trans inclusive)?

Mmmnotsure · 08/12/2025 23:57

InvisibleDragon · Today 22:41
I have a question about the 1992 Workplace regs and the SC judgement in FWS. (Wow, there's a sentence I never thought I'd write. Right up there with having to tell my toddler that "we don't lick the bus".)

😀Women's concerns in 2025.

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 23:59

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 23:55

Nothing. The Supreme Court did that.

Show quote history

Did it, though? Is it not true that it only referred specifically to the EA2010, although anyone with what my granny used to call 'a titter of sense' would accept that it must mean all legislation?
That's what I think but I can't remember the details, it's all becoming one big blur

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/12/2025 00:00

usernameinserthere · 08/12/2025 23:09

How can we discuss the case without discussing its inevitable outcomes.

I’m curious as to why this is equivalent to sexual harassment when you’re supportive of Dr Upton sexually harassing Sandie Peggie by making notes about her and exposing himself in front of her

Show quote history

It's the same old join the dots problem.

"These are the dots. I will die for these dots. Anyone who says there is a problem with these dots is a bigot".

"yeah, but if you join the dots, the picture you get is not good. These are not good dots"

"I do not understand this joining of dots. There are just the dots. Each dot stands alone. If there are consequences when the dots are joined, or if the dots contradict each other, that is not my problem. I just care for the dots."