NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #57

[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 28 September 2025 to 21 November 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 19 November 2025 to 8 December 2025
Thread 56: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5456749-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-56 8 December 2025 to 9 December 2025

This is an oldie but a goodie from Robin Moira White:

It is, I find, an advantage to be very old, in that I started work in the rail industry before the 1992 Regulations were in force. The rail industry was sexist and misogynistic.
Provision for female staff was 'OK' around office blocks and passenger stations for obvious reasons, but even in the middle 1980's, a decade after the Sex Discrimination Act had been passed, facilities for women were woeful at many depots and engineering facilities. A few women had been seen in the rail industry during WW2 but the return of the men from fighting had seen them displaced and not replaced. The arguments were often circular. Female apprentices were not employed because there were no female facilities and female facilities were not provided because there were no female apprentices or artisans. Such was the position in may 'traditional' industries. I vividly remember that at one train depot we visited as a group of management trainees, the male trainees 'guarding' the male facilities after checking they were empty so that our female colleagues could use them.
And this is what the 1992 Regulations were designed to deal with. This was the problem they were designed to solve, and that is why they refer to male and female facilities and the PROVISION of facilities, not their policing.
Trans people were not on the legislative horizon in 1992. P v Cornwall and the 1999
Regulations which gave protection to trans people in UK Law for the first time were a whole administration away. No-one drafting the 1992 Regulations gave the slightest thought to trans people.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1998376569367384525?s=20

I agree. What’s needed are clear policies that reflect the law. Not some mish mash of weellll it depends if anyone complains nonsense.

Women in so many workplaces dare not speak up and need the clear SC judgement applied by their employers.And before now!

Whether or not to follow the law can’t be subject to individual voices. I mean, where would that stop! It’s especially important to abide with health and safety laws - imagine if, say, an employer chose not to implement the LOLER lifting regs because everyone said they were happy to use the lift despite its lack of maintenance? Just not optional.

It’s frightening to have read the words on the accessibility or not in toilets being “subject to …”

I don't agree that is a cop out by the SC. They resolve the issues that have been argued in the case. Neither side argued the Workplace Regulations, so they would have been out of line if they had ruled on the regulations. However, I doubt they anticipated that tribunals would render the regulations meaningless by ignoring FWS.

Interesting @Keeptoiletssafe
It seems to put RMW on our side

It's not just the Judge who was a misogynistic hard-of-thinking disappointment. There were two others on his Panel.

I'm very troubled by the possible role played by the Panel's two lay-members in this tedious travesty of a ruling. The two lay-members are listed as a C Russell and an L Brown.

One is there to bring the experience & perspective of an employer, such as a business owner or human resources specialist. The second should provide the experience & perspective of an employee, such as a trade union official. This is supposed to ensure that Employment Tribunals have a balance of manager & worker experience to draw on while making their rulings.

But we know the Trade Unions are pretty much universally TWAW & No Debate diehards. Who on this Panel was providing experience & focus on the employee rights of someone like Sandie Peggie, rather than just those of Dr Upton?

Does anyone know the professional backgrounds of the Lay Members 'C Russell' and 'L Brown'? If one is there as the 'employee' panellist by being an experienced Trade Union Official that must be a huge red flag regarding potential bias?

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1998296075111993426?s=20

Indeed @Manxexile On the last thread I posted info I’d found down a late night rabbit hole foray into the legislation that predated the 1974 act and 1992 regs. The Factories Act. In there, where it talks about welfare facilities, it specifically refers to sex, not men and women. In 1992 everyone knew what man and woman meant. But with hindsight how much better it would have been to have used the 1961 language when moving to the 1992 regs!

Why is the focus on safety (though Judge Sandy didn’t voter to read the stats) Anyway?
women are allowed privacy and dignity too. No mention of that in Kelly or Peggie ?

Yep. He then says:
‘There is no definition of 'male' or 'female' in the Regulations. There is no 'common law' definition of 'male' and 'female' in UK Law and I challenge anyone to identify it, despite. the fact that quite senior Counsel, on occasion, have told judges with a straight face that there is.’

Obviously there’s no definition of male and female because no one was daft enough to think they needed to be defined, or as Robin says, no-one drafting the 1992 Regulations gave the slightest thought to trans people.
Also this was before the Supreme Court, so challenge accepted!

Thanks @prh47bridge for your analysis. When you say your view is that the ruling is appealable, against which respondent do you mean?

The EJ seemed very taken (in) by Upton's "feminine" appearance. I wonder which sex he thinks these people are/were:
Dick Emery
Danny LaRue
Dame Edna Everidge
Paul O'Grady / Lily Savage
Eddie /"Suzi" Izzard
Philip/ "Pips" Bunce
Conchita Wurst
Any number of drag artists

Especially since some of the above claim to be men some days and women on other days. How does the law apply in such cases? Let's remember Dr U got married as a man only a short time before starting to claim he is a woman. My head hurts

jeez slow down ladies, I canny keep up.

Feel sorry for Naomi, Charlotte etc having to read all those pages. I confess I just read the summaries (and other people's tweets about it).

I think we should leave the judge alone, and keep poking holes in his judgement instead.

I wasn't serious about sending him cards or letters but I was serious about poking a hole in his opinion that (I can't find the exact wording now) there is no detriment to or any safety issue for women in allowing men into SSS.

I felt pretty down yesterday because of the two judgements that were handed down in the past week.

However, what is giving me hope is the way this has been reported in the media, particularly the BBC and Sky News.

Both made clear that DU, that there is a conflict of rights and that some are saying the ruling is problematic because it puts the onus on women to complain. This points to an injustice. And because things seem no clearer for employers (it is lawful/it is not lawful for a tw to use female changing rooms) it puts pressure on the government to hurry up and publish the code of practice. There is no way this would have been reported so clearly a year ago. So huge progress on that front.

The Prescott memo criticised the BBC, but perhaps media outlets like Sky are also considering whether they have got the balance right when reporting on sex v gender. Or perhaps they are just following the BBC's lead.

Either way, having this reported on accurately is half the battle. If there are plans afoot to change the Equality Act to women's detriment, the general public will be more aware of the issues. The damage of no debate can be undone.

I wonder what sex the judge thinks Naomi is.
Short hair
No make up
Wears trousers

IANAL but I don't see how NHS Fife could be found guilty of allowing Sandie to be harassed without looking back to see who (i.e. Upton) was the cause. No man in the changing room - no complaint.

As for saying that male and female aren't defined in law - I thought that there had been cases in the past - where a male who has had surgery has then tried to be classes as a woman. April Ashley from the 1960s springs to mind. ( A bloke who had had surgery which I won't call a sex change because it wasn't. He was a mutilated man.)

Direct and forthright
Doesn't speak in "the voice"

Oh he knows ... otherwise he'd have treated her differently.

I wonder if he ever watched ‘The Crying Game’?

I wonder what sex the judge thinks Naomi is.
Short hair
No make up
Wears trousers

I thought that too - quite a masculine style of haircut, but one look at her and you can see that she's female.

As in the building standards at the time, the health and safety benefits of single sex toilets with door gaps in design can only come at the expense of a degree of privacy. There’s a point where privacy goes too far at the expense of safety.

The 1992 regs are regarding Health, safety and welfare.

If you look at hierarchical needs, privacy comes after safety and health. To balance all three you need single sex toilets and changing rooms.

There’s actually a case I had in mind where a doctor died in a private toilet off a changing room and the nurses debated whether to go in and check he was ok. By the time they wasted time and managed to open the door, they tried cpr but it was too late. Upton’s suggestion was private cubicles off the changing room and it reminded me of this case. Completely private cubicles leading to a mixed space is a dangerous theme except in the Kelly case where the judge mentioned gaps for hygiene (hurrah - got the health but forgot the safety).

A quote from Victoria McCloud: ‘…it’s dangerous I think, or risky, or at least rather intimidating to have a space for women that is occupied by men if it’s somewhere like a loo or a changing room’.
BBC Sounds 7th June 2025

Dangerous
Risky
Intimidating

They all used 'she' and 'her' and were very defensive of 'Beth'.

Not always. It's very difficult to keep up the pretence that a man is a woman when the evidence of your own eyes tells you it's not the case.

As well as there generally being a sign put up if a male person is entering the women's changing room for maintenance or whatever, surely it's not considered part of a maintenance person's remit to take his clothes off in the women's SSS.