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

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

Fair, but depressing, point.

I have been sexually assaulted by a transwoman in the ladies.

My experience, feelings, and preferences aren't as important as a man's, though. Judge has made that very clear.

So the judgement is erroneous then as it’s incorrectly interpreting the law? What a waste of fucking time… hope SP and team fancy contesting that bit.

'The conduct expected of any woman'

Paras 979-981

Well spotted.

Another inconsistency.

Though to be fair, probably depends on the amount and colour of loopy

Lippy (but loopy will do)

A little over three-quarters of NHS staff are women. I do wonder what their collective reaction to this absurd judgement is today. The judge was so contemptuous of their rights for safety, comfort and well-being in their workplace, and so fawningly deferential to a tiny number of men who merely wish they were women.

The Supreme Court ruling was very clear, if it says Women or Female on the sign, then all trans women (with or without a GRC) MUST be excluded.

Are all first-tier employment judges incredibly stupid? Do they all want to be humiliated at appeal? I am bewildered.

The timing is interesting - EJ Michelle Sutherland can't wait to rush to judgement - running out her papers on Kelly as fast as you can. Big Sond takes his time - 300 pages of pish.

EJ MS gives notice, EJ SK doesn't give notice. Both annouced within a week of each other.

A divide and conquer strategy of Naomi's time? Both appeals to be issued in six weeks in the mouth of Christmas.....

Both salaries judges on a circuit of 22. Have actually had a case where they both were involved in.

Small world. Many similarities. Only one woman complained so it's not worth taking seriously.

Two cowards.

After 56 threads, it's come down to this? That once again, the process is the punishment? it's going to be a long, long road.

A senior female nurse with long service is described as inconsistent, unreliable, taking matters into her own hands.

A junior doctor who is male but says he's a woman is portrayed as credible and unlikely to fabricate.

This judge frames Peggie as the aggressor and Upton as a victim.

It frames Peggie's objections as misconduct.

Centres the feelings of the male. Minimised the feelings of the woman.

I think this leaves the judge open to a Judicial Office complaint of sexist conduct.

Cowards is generous.

“According to the tribunal, the law says that it is neither legal OR illegal for a transgender woman to use female changing rooms”

from the BBC - what 🦇💩is this?

3/4 of the staff are women. But they've been scared into silence.

And now one woman spoke up and was dismissed while the lying doctor was credible.

Who would raise their head? In this case. Women are right to be scared.

As has been discussed on other threads, the mish-mash of rules, regulations, workplace, health and safety, equality act, building regs prior to 2024, building regs post 2024, Eng/Wales/Scot/NI is a nightmare.
There always seems to be some 'yes but...' available for TRAs to exploit.

And even if it can be established that there has to be single sex separate facilities for men and for women, there is the daft but apparently sustainable argument that the SC judgement only applies to Equality Act 2010, and it's a free-for-all in all other pieces of legislation.

I know they say the law is an ass [pronouns hee/haw], but that's supposed to be a criticism. Surely it is possible to clarify that if 'sex' means biological sex in one piece of legislation, it means the same thing in all pieces of legislation.

And they know NC has other GC cases coming. She’s pretty busy.

One thing I think these judgements do is to make it more likely that there will be genuine transphobia. Imagine you're on an interview panel and there are two very evenly-matched candidates, one of whom is trans. Given that what these judgements do is make it clear that as an employer you cannot please everyone and which way bits of a tribunal will go is unclear... with the best will in the world, I think your subconscious is going to be trying to deliver to you reasons why the non-trans candidate is better. If we had clarity within the law, so that you knew what instructions you'd give to the trans person and that you wouldn't get criticised for them or for the disciplinary action you'd take if anyone wouldn't abide by the instructions, it would be far easier to take on a trans employee.

As noted, where the Darlington nurses made a joint complaint, its called bullying.

From twitter: x.com/lnmackenzie1/status/1998032981181727077?s=20

1049. In our view, having read all of the documents, there is very far from sufficient reliable evidence to establish as a fact that a trans woman who is legally and biologically male is a greater risk to any person assigned female at birth within a changing room environment at a workplace than another woman assigned female at birth.

Well, that's great. Very reassuring, thanks, Big Sond.

I wonder if all those posters who were insisting that the SC judgement evidently mandated the exclusion of trans women from women's facilities , - and that there is no feasible alternative interpretation - will reconsider the infallibility of their legal reasoning ..

Oooh. I'm not on Twitter these days, so hearing about it here is very good news indeed.

That's also not the bloody point, is it!

It's a matter of principle, not of weighing up risks.
Men should stay out of women's facilities because they are not women, full stop.
edited to say the exasperation is directed at the judge, not you NSP

I think that is true though. It's not the TW who is breaking the law, it's the service provider or employer.

The SC ruling does exclude any male, even those ith a GRC, from a designated female only facility. This is but one reason why this judgement will most likely be appealed.

Furtrhermore, that has always been the case, the SC judgement merely clarified it.