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

Any mention in the judgement of Upton stating he would ignore the consent of a female patient asking for a same-sex carer?

Of course. But it's terribly convenient to this particular political movement.

I would imagine we're now seeing the sticking point with the EHRC and the government. The government would like something like this. The EHRC think women should have actual single sex space access without having to invoke their rights and out themselves politically in order to be allowed it.

The end result is the exactly the same: mixed sex and single sex options alongside and all needs met. Why can't we just go straight there and save all the drama?!

Fortunately it's making me more motivated.

I daresay I'm not alone in this feeling.

But haven't Fife issued new guidance and transwomen are no longer able to access women's changing rooms? If so, isn't it irrelevant how many women complain because there won't be any transwomen in their changing rooms.

It's not brilliant re action against the union, because she needs to show her case was something they should have taken on. Maybe for now concentrate on the bits that have been found to be harassment, possibly add the policy on changing later? But an action for breach of contract will be tried by a different manner of judge from an ET judge, with no lay members.

Also it’s worth noting that the judge says there shld be a test for how to balance competing rights. Presumably the EHRC guidance gives exactly this. But the govt doesn’t want to publish it.

Yeah, that's actually a pretty useful point. I can totally see why a member of the judiciary would think this important.

That's why I believe that any case or legal review would find that women/men in the regulations means biological sex unless their is a specific different definition.

I have wondered if the review in Northern Ireland about how the SC judgment applies to NI laws might assist. If their review finds that sex means bio sex in their equivalent of the Equality Act or even better if it finds that all references to sex in NI laws refers to bio sex ot makes it harder to argue that the 1992 regs don't also mean bio sex

Wouldn't the fact that she's won on part of her claim do that, against Fife at least?

Sorry to quote myself but another thought there:

from what I know of the Equality Act:

Duty to be anticipatory, not reactive (providing facilities after someone has a problem that was foreseeable)

Indirect discrimination: being required to share highly personal information and inappropriate information in order to qualify for accessible resources.

I don't think that will stand up. Anticipatory provision that does not mean discriminatory treatment arising would just mean single sex and mixed sex options and everyone chooses as they wish/need.

if a man is still allowed in the space it’s ignoring the use of hidden cameras

What about hospital wards ?
Do we all have to wear badges telling everyone we object to mixed sex care just in case we are incapable of speaking for ourselves

Should we declare our ‘needs’ before as a , just in case.
Do we walk into every changing room and tell the shop assistant I declare my right to a single sex space 🤣🤣

This is just ridiculous
and I’m disgusted.

What the hell will the updated advice from the ECHR be now I wonder
It’s only single sex if ‘cis’ women complain ….?!?! each and every time ?!?!

Yes, that's what I meant. But it focuses on their behaviour, not their policy. To add that, she might need some decisions in her favour on the policy itself being a form of harassment (Pete argument)

I mean, what a load of tosh. I've been ruminating on this all afternoon and I can't get past muttering 'worra loada bollocks' every now and again whilst shaking my head.

His cock as a starter for 10.

From the comments posted the judgement is disappointing for SP and for all women who do object to having to share their single sex spaces with men, which is quite a few of us, despite what this judgement say's. 🤬

To the point that a couple of posters have made re Naomi C using reality based language and this perhaps not being an effective strategy. I disagree. It puts me in mind of Maria MacLachlan being punished by the judge by refusing to use her attacker’s preferred pronouns. The tribunal in this case appears to have taken a similar view. They gave the pretence of neutrality by using they/them pronouns but it’s clear from the judgment they were anything but neutral. I don’t think the fact that NC referred to Upton as “he” should even have been referenced in the determination if the judges were genuinely neutral on that point. It certainly shouldn’t have added to his credibility that he was referred to as male.

It’s going to take women to be assaulted or raped in work toilets for any change I think. Bloody hell.

Really good point.

Me too - pretty sure the law and building regs require single sex provision for toilets and changing rooms in working environments? Or did I imagine reading that?

Wasn't one of the preliminary hearings about whether NC could use sex based pronouns? How can judge permit them to be used and then complain that NC did exactly as she was permitted to do .

But the EHRC only think that because it is the law, being conveniently ignored by the ET

Why should this make any difference? There have been assaults and rapes already and all that’s happened is the women have been gaslit. Including by an nhs trust telling the police there were no men on the ward on which the rape happened.

Wings over Scotland tearing the judgment apart, especially the bit which states ‘second respondent not a person who is obviously male from external appearance’?! On what planet?! A trip to Specsavers wouldn’t go amiss.

They do, only trans activists try to claim that the word 'man' or 'woman' could mean anything the fuck at all if you dont stipulate 'biological' and list chromosomal arrangements.

The SC was very clear that this isnt the case.

The problem with appealing is our judicial institutions in Scotland seem to be captured by this nonsense. I’m not convinced a Scottish EAT will be more sensible than the ET. And then the appeal is to the court of session, who remember decided FWS wrongly. It may have to end up in the Supreme Court and god knows how long that will take.

They do and single sex takes priority in terms of design provision
but
This ruling suggests it might say single sex but it doesn’t actually mean single sex it means
anyone who fancies being a man or a women
Thats the issue