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

Whether Upton looks male or female in a social setting or courtroom is irrelevant, it's what he looks like in a changing room and that meant that Peggie saw him as a man, as even the judge would.

Oh does it not?

Better tell Girlguiding, the WI and the Labour Party then

"Off course". what by sharing an opinion you don't care to hear?

If EJ had decided this case properly, NHS Scotland (and many others) would be in a proper pickle, with potentially thousands of similar actions for harassment having to be upheld. Some of the suggestions here as to how female employees could proceed from now on to get a policy changed might just be a sensible middle ground to stop these things happening again (?)

Well I couldn't say. but the only time that theory has been tested in court so far... says not I'm afraid.

OOoo, does this mean it's our turn to be all judgey about TRAs being happy with the judgement, like the TRAs were about FWS being visibly pleased the judgement that they had fought and fought for went in their favour?

Can we criticise Upton & co for not being sympathetic enough to the women who will now be feeling distress, fear and unsafety as a result of their win?

Almost certainly!

I mean that's how it works right??

Can a judgement from a ET end up in the SC, because it seems this is the way it goes in Scotland, a case, 2 appeals and then clarity from the SC.

The progressive left won't give up on this stupidity, and with so many on the left supporting it out of ignorance it might take a revolution to undo the harm that's been done to women's right's.

Simplicity is everybody's friend here - except men who want to use the women's toilet, of course

Toilets have to be segregated on the basis of sex.

Mixed sex toilets are an optional extra.

If the building is so small it can't accommodate separate toilets, a 'universal' toilet is acceptable.

[These are in fact the building regs requirements for Eng? Eng&Wales?? for new buildings and alterations to old buildings since 2024]

'Sex' means biological sex in all rules and regulations covering the provision of toilets, changing rooms etc.

No confusion, no working out which men are the special kind, no Red Bull-fuelled squirrels running around trying to explain why 'women only' also includes men....

Does Big Sond have a trans-identified family member? It's the only reason I could think of why someone would be prepared to make such a tit of himself in public.

Mmm I think you’ll find that those organisations were following the SC decision. ET decisions are not legally binding.

Feel free to go use the gents if you like cocks in your changing rooms 🥰

Let's say the judge is right and workplace regulations don't refer to bio sex.

Let's also imagine that Pete the manly plumber retrains and is now Pete the manly nurse

Pete wants to use the "women's" changing room because they're nicer than the men's but is told by his employer that he can't use them and must change in the "mens"

When Pete sues his employer for sex discrimination what will be their defence? They can't use the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to keep him out as they are claiming that they are not single sex as permitted by the EA.

I think we need some cases where the Equality Act applies to the toilets and changing rooms instead of the 1992 Regs, as this is what’s giving the ETs an excuse to weasel out of giving the correct outcome.

Judicial Office has posted link to decision and press summary on twitter :https://x.com/JudiciaryUK/status/1998015616955908255?s=20

The Tribunal absolutely wanted to be first with a press summary, didn't they, despite agreement of the parties to request 5 days embargoed notice? I see now from TT that Big Bad Sond did mention that he would have to check with President. Am I remembering correctly - was it the Belfast Tribunal where the Judge said similar thing about checking with President about giving parties notice of decision?

That’s surprising. Did they quote crime statistics of males (even the ones who say they are women) in comparison to women’s crime statistics? Goodness, I think I read somewhere that those men (those who say they are women) have a disproportionately higher rate of sex offending convictions than other men.

Why do people (and I am uncertain if the judge is one of those) want to make it easier for those men to gain access, even greater access than other men, to spaces where women are more vulnerable or in a state of undress. Indeed, it makes it easier for all and any men. Could it be an ephemeral breathy voice, or a wispy hair flick that constitutes a man being a woman, as judgement was not concrete on what made a man not a man. Even with lippy on, a man can expose himself, commit voyeurism and worse. It would creep many a woman out, and it would only embolden any potential pervert. What is the answer? access and opportunity for dudes , of course.

I'd also like to ask - what is the acceptable number of women to make a complaint about men in the changing room / toilets? Seems from recent cases that one is not enough but I'm sure the Darlington nurses were told there were too many of them.

I'm sure someone will put me right if Im being naive but, it seems to me that, either these cases are throwing out such complexities that they should be judged by specialists in sex/gender issues, or that the ET judges at this level need a lot more training in the application of the law.

I can't help wondering how the EAT judges are feeling at the prospect of having two more (so far) cases dropped on them to unravel.

Sudden flurry of leave applications?

Edited for typo

Yes but the only court that has tested this principle so far seems to think the SC judgement doesn't actually establish a blanket mandate that trans women must be excluded from women's facilities.

Food for thought eh?

Acc to the EA, if any other man is allowed use the women's CR, Pete must be allowed use the women's CR,
Or to put it another way -
If they can send one man to the moon, they are legally obliged under the EA to send them all there😁

I'm reeling a bit from this judgement.

After the SCJ HOW can any judge not understand that single sex spaces must be single sex?

If it only applies to the Equality Act why have the Guides and the WI caved to exclude trans women?

If workplace regulations say there must be single sex facilities at work how can this judgement stand?

Please someone help it make sense.

What seemed clear yesterday now seems very murky and up for debate again.

Only if you don’t have many brain cells

I can’t remember if it was in one of Michael Foran’s podcasts or if he was relaying one of NC’s arguments. But for the Workplace regulations to not refer to biological sex in 1992, that would require an interpretation that somehow the law applied on a self ID basis at that time. But the GRC act only came into being in 2014 and there were a number of court cases in the 90s and early 2000s that were about arguing a person’s ability to change their sex that wouldn’t have occurred if self id was a thing.

I’m sure Michael Foran’s thoughts on the judgement will be interesting

I imagine Guides and the WI realise that they come under the Equality Act, not the Workplace regulations.

Yes, I think we can expect many judges in lower courts overturned at appeal before the facts of the matter are accepted.

But accepted they will be, because outside of a trans identifying man's head there is no meaningful difference between him and any other man, and therefore there is no workable alternative to treating him as the man he is. And the courts will increasingly recognise this.