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

Middle class man's feelings held to be more important than those of working class woman. The former is of course credible, the latter should have known her fucking place.

We are constantly reminded to know our place.

Th Equality act applies in the workplace too.

Employers cannot discriminate based on sex anymore than the WI can.

Why doesn't the SCJ apply to work toilets?

they succeed in silencing women from having the discussion we wanted.

Woman here 🙋🏼‍♀️. With contributions to that discussion

I agree - on the previous thread I noted that the judge referred to the 1992 Workplace regs, which require separate facilities for 'men and women', and admitted that the tribunal did not have the competency to decide whether the SC judgment covered them.

It appears to me [with no background knowledge at all!] in the mind of the tribunal, maybe SP was 100% correct that DrU had no right to be in the women's CR but maybe DrU was 100% correct to feel harassed by SP saying that.

If they are so hazy about such a crucial point, and even admit to not knowing how to interpret the 1992 regs post SC, it casts doubt on their final decisions, doesn't it?

It's the sexism that gets me. Old blokes when I was growing up in a northern working class town didn't display this level of sexism. How can anyone think these attitudes are progressive?

Yes. Hence suggesting we put pressure on them, so they feel they are at risk and flip into pressurizing the EHCR to crack on with the guidance rather than welcoming the EHRC's failure to deliver as a convenient excuse to continue sitting on the fence.

I seem to recall Michael Foran saying in a livestream that he thought the claim of sexual harassment against BU was very unlikely to succeed. As far as I remember he thought the other claims would succeed. But I don't think he thought it was as clear cut as all that.

That is astonishingly sexist.

Yes, would be interested to see this.

Once again we still don't know the answer to the question - if it's not sex that differentiates men from women (and the Supreme Court says that it does), what is the difference? What legislation would we put into place to utilise any such distinction, should anyone, ever, be able to articulate it?

Why doesn't the SCJ apply to work toilets?

Different area of law, I guess

I don't feel negative. We have won on the Equality Act. We will win on other regulations, even if cases go back to the SC.

We just know with more certainty what we always knew. We are not as important as men, not quite as human, not worthy of as much respect

I think the worst of it, actually, is the suggestion that it was harassment because they didn't remove him temporarily until rotas could be changed for them to avoid each other. As if it were a special arrangement for which someone might ask rather than an obligation to avoid harassment/voyeurism/exposure for all. And the idea that it's about a particular person's previous experience of abuse/rape which is meant to come with lifelong anonymity so no one ever needs to tell an employer. Complete failure to grasp the real issue. I know others thought this one was stronger than the Darlington case but I thought the sexual harassment was made much clearer there and must harder for the clowns to refute.

If they are so hazy about such a crucial point, and even admit to not knowing how to interpret the 1992 regs post SC, it casts doubt on their final decisions, doesn't it?

@MarieDeGournay why wouldn't the SCJ apply to the 1992 regs?
I feel like I've been missing a significant piece of information as I believed post SCJ, single sex had to mean single sex otherwise you'd be at risk of sex discrimination under the Equality Act. Why wouldn't that apply to the 1992 regs?

So much for Big Sond..... I feel there is far too much emotion in the judgment/decision given today and not enough factual legal reasons. Facts and truth and eyes please.

Darlington has one thing going for it, the numbers of nurses making a complaint. But it should rest on just one complainant. No valid reason why not IMV.

So bleakly looking to the future - SC stands, its interpretation remains as things were before it, subject to challenge here there and everywhere, and the Government is blatantly holding out on releasing the EHRC guidance, awaiting all the current and pending ET decisions so far. I am not impressed.

I can only hope that the judges in Kelly and Peggie just want someone else to deal with trans issues in the workplace. They have no problem dealing with harrassment by the employer who is neither male, female nor trans. Go figure.

I always felt that DrU's invention of incidents of serious professional misconduct by SP was reprehensible.

I think the judge manages to wave that away too, both the fact that DrU made them up - not very credible and reliant, eh? - and their potential seriousness for SP's career.

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

There were some of us trying to explain that it actually wasn't all that clear yesterday, but we kept getting told off for being naughty and interrupting.

Thats tue quality of discussion around here because of a collection of posters who have felt entitled to appoint themselves the discussion police, so I wouldn't take it so seriously next time as an actual source of reasonable and considered information.

You misunderstand. This was not a case brought to test the SC ruling. And the judge has, in fact, misunderstood and misinterpreted the ruling.

I need to try to understand the law, as this has thrown my previous understanding and it's going to come up in discussions I'm going to need to have.

I find FWR invaluable in providing knowledge and helping understanding around the law which is not my area of expertise but something i need to know about as it's going to arise for me in various contexts.

It wasn't brought for the purpose of testing the judgement, but it tested it nonetheless because the court considered the law in making its determination.

Just seen the Green Party wanging on about how the case shows how unfair everything is for Trans people...christ on a bike, you couldn't make it up!
Well, they will keep showing us why women shouldn't vote Green at least!

The judge misunderstood and misrepresented the ruling. The SC court ruling is binding on all lower courts.

Well then. Food for thought indeed. I’m currently chewing over the patriarchal positioning of women further down the hierarchy than men who wish to be seen as women. I’ll need a bigger drink.

That someone can look at SP and DU and decide for Upton to allowed across all the women’s facilities of the hospital sticks in my craw. It beggars belief.

So say you. The judge disagreed.

I'd be interested to know this too - is there any actual argument as to why it wouldn't?

I think it must be a typo