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

@spannasaurus I think this is the type of case that is now needed. SP, MK and the Darlington Nurses all have a potential case to test the 1992 Workplace Regs.

The fact that SP and Darlington Nurses are required to change at work for Health & Safety reasons I think is a higher bar than toilets. I am not saying toilets don’t matter it’s the requirement to undress that makes the argument for SSS on the basis of privacy and dignity.

If I had JKRs fund backing me I would pick the Darlington Nurses as a test case. Partly because they are not a single voice but a group.

But this doesn’t work ref the SC judgment. What this would do is to allow employers who currently have self ID policies (trans use whatever facility you want and stuff everyone else) NOT to change them in line with the law, but to say something like if you are trans, you can use whatever facility you like, unless anyone (or how many?) object. So makes the law subjective and variable. The whole purpose of the SC was clarity.

Already employers are delaying updating policies because they don’t have the guts to apply what is clear. Adding individual or even bill choice as to whether the law is complied with is surely wrong and unworkable

Sandie's not trans.

Michael Foran is on Radio 4 right now (clip starting at 8:50 for anyone catching up later).

Michael Foran on R4 now

Snap!

R4 Today programme has Michael Foran on at 8:50.

Talking very diplomatically but doesn't sound very impressed!

What’s be pointing out as potential weaknesses in the outcome?

Surely all of it as it's ultimately sexist nonsense that's unworkable and biased against women and favours large organisations which can continue bully through policy and process?

She was cleared by the subsequent disciplinary hearing decision.

Isn't all this incredible. I had no idea so many men thought women should be perfectly happy to undress in front of men. All my life there have been male and female toilets and changing rooms. Swimming pools started introducing changing villages some time ago, presumably to be more family friendly - I know they are much disliked by some but I think when they started being a thing it was pre-mobile phone and voyeurism didn't seem to be so common as far as I can remember. But aside of swimming pools the male and female split was unremarked, everyone understood and it all worked perfectly well as far as I can remember. Suddenly the whole trans issue pops up and what do you know? Legions of men, men who would have grown up, as I did, with clear separation of male/female facilities, think women should be perfectly happy to undress infront of men, and also to tolerate those men undressing infront of them.

So many court cases. So many threads on Mumsnet.

I just take a step back sometimes and think what the hell. How did we get here.🤷‍♀️

Well I suppose it is progress that the Today programme is allowed to cover it, but I notice the concession is that they have to cover gender issues after 8:45.

I hope they manage to get some government ministers to agree to be interviewed.

Yes. Had there been a clear, fixed, unambiguous policy in place in line with the SC judgment, the whole case could have been avoided. So important for workplace policy to conply with the law and not introduce whatiffery or choice. It’s basically unfair on everyone.

In case anyone was in any doubt, this is paragraph 225 from the Supreme Court judgment.

“On any view, the plain intention of these provisions is to allow for the provision of separate or single-sex services for women which exclude all (biological) men (or vice-versa). Applying a biological meaning of sex achieves that purpose.”

Big Sond did not read the judgment.

I think he weaselled out on the basis that that workplace regs are not the equality act

I wonder whether the change in attitude about SSS is partly due to this:

Back in the day, men considered women their property and wanted that property protected from other men.

Women wanted to be protected from men, they wanted SSS for their own safety based reasons.

Men have now been taught (with greater or lesser success) that women are not actually their property. They never really understood the safety aspect (because they’re men). So now they think SSS are historical and irrelevant.

Listening to Michael Foran, it seems that Big Sond didn’t actually consider any of the statistics submitted about risks to women, as the data and reporting were sent as hyperlinks?! 🤯

Here's the clip: https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1998319619656888774?s=20

Indeed.

Notably the maternity stuff coming out to day really shows up how patients with clear evidence of abuse and terrible conduct by hospitals haven't been able to get adequate safety care. So how do women working for the same organisations, especially non white women, working class women and women with mental health problems going to get their feelings about shared accommodation and facilities upheld without bullying.

It's a farce and one that is demonstrably so - it's a fantasy to believe that women will be protected and respected. Meanwhile these males will be fawned over by middle class out of touch management.

Another issue is that I think there is a general lack of understanding and knowledge about the changing facilities on offer in most NHS hospitals, especially the older ones. ie cramped and grubby in most places I have ever worked. My current hospital has a chronic lack of space, there is a constant battle for office space for Drs and others, and it simply isn't possible to magic up new third spaces. Especially due to lack of finance as well as space.

Get rid of a EDI manager or two. There's some office space and a bit of extra budget.

Job done.

I haven't checked but I think that's right for England - but this is Scotland. I think (but haven't checked) that that means it's the Court of Session instead of the High Court?

I can't believe I'm hearing the BBC "butt in" (politely) to argue that we KNOW male people are more of a risk to females than other females are?!

What's happening?!! They're making the feminist argument for us? (Not listened to it all yet but the brief summary of points MF gave would definitely make anyone sit up and think "hang on...")

Sex Matters have been pushing hard for HSE to say something about this, on twitter. My assumption was that their thinking is that if the HSE issue guidance, then either the guidance says what we want it to say, or it can be challenged for being unlawful (by judicial review perhaps? IANAL...). Perhaps exactly the problem is that while HSE stay silent on the matter it's difficult to tackle.