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

No, it does not happen often. I can't remember it happening before in the context of fake quotes, but I wouldn't say for certain that it has never happened.

The fake quotes aren't really material to the judgement so on their own they don't undermine it, but there is plenty of other stuff in there that does. The arguments it makes are poor and its interpretation of the laws and precedents is, in many places, simply wrong.

Just mulling things through and may be overthinking. The Kelly v Leonardo judgement was rushed through in what seemed like indecent haste before this one, which suggests that, if both are appealed Kelly (which, on the face of it, would be less complex) would be heard at EAT first. That case, win or lose, would create a precedent which would apply also to Sandie Peggie, particularly regarding the "balance test", as suggested by the reddit user protect-the-dollz upthread. If the Kelly appeal is lost, would this then reduce the grounds on which Sandie's case could be appealed and if so, is it likely that both will end up at SC?

Surely it is material in that if he thought that, it might explain why he didn't think that there needed to be a women's single sex space as there is no hierarchy.

The sort of thing we come up against, if we try to believe there is something called gender identity.

I don't buy it - are we supposed to belive that the judge is manually typing in each quote?

The text used is different to anything in the source text - not a typo

I wonder if the judge used an AI summary and copy pasted that?

If you are talking about colony insects, they are almost all female. Bees, wasps, ants, all the workers are female.

The Courier was my local paper growing up and was always regarded as a bit parochial but they've done excellent work on this.

Hmmm, worrying, but I like @alsoFanOfNaomi's take on this. I would add that who knows what the gender identities are of all the men in the men's changing room. They could be non-binary, therian, or any one of the other 72, or 107, or n+1 other genders that are out there. So you could argue that the male humans in the men's room are only being given a room that aligns with their biological sex (which is, like, DUH, but here we are), and, therefore, the TIMs are being given the same.

I think we need to think in terms of harassment, not discrimination.

In a workplace conduct related to a PC that has the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile workplace is illegal.

Allowing or disallowing trans identifying people to use the bathroom of their choice can be argued to violate the dignity of either women, or trans identifying people, depending on which way the decision is made.

I think that is at root of the “balance” issue. So, harassment, not discrimination. Hence the need to reinterpret the workplace regulations.

The argument could be that but the counter argument would be that men are given a CR based on their sex not a gender identity. In any case how many men would even claim to have a gender identity?

I don't think so, because it's true that the EA2010 doesn't create a hierarchy of protected characteristics - it just doesn't say so in the document he cited.

I don't think so, because it's true that the EA2010 doesn't create a hierarchy of protected characteristics - it just doesn't say so in the document he cited.

The TRAs have made the assumption that it did - TWs first, all the rest, nowhere.

I believe 'Would you drink "milk" from a bull?' is a well-known alternative to the Staniland question in some circles of Twitter...

(Edited to remove pointless emojis. Note to self: you are on Mumsnet, not WhatsApp, ffs.)

Edited again to add that your emojis are very apt and funny, Vegemite, I just tend to overuse them myself. Realised after I'd posted that it might have sounded like I was getting at you.

Will try to stop editing now.

😂

I can't find the article to link to, but I am pretty certain that a request was made to expedite the Kelly v Leonardo appeal. It is a far simpler case.

The offices did have a unisex toilet, though, so hopefully that won't muddy the issue.

Sure, but he's seemingly claiming that it explicitly did, which it didn't, so despite there being no hierarchy he seems to be relying on that being official. Either way, it's very bad that he's seemingly making up quotes.

He has something in common with Upton's contemporaneous notes.

So would the third, mixed-sex space that the SC calls for fix that? The TW would keep their dignity in the workplace that way, right?

I remember finding that out when helping a friend with her bees. She called them 'the girls' and explained about how the male drones are driven out in autumn because they don't do any work and just eat. We kept bees for a while and there were very few drones.

Thank you, that makes sense.

I think the Judge is hinting at 3rd spaces. I think harassment would be much harder to claim if an alternative space is available. The question then being, who 'has to' use the alternative space

Para 910
In other circumstances there may be other facilities available, such as a toilet or room that can be used alone by either sex. It seems to us that the extent of the options available, or that there are only male or female facilities and no other at that time, is a factor that can be relevant.

Upton still has his knob so should be using the male Changing Rooms

edit after rereading... Plenty of other places remark that the EA2010 makes no hierarchy, and it's clear from its text that it doesn't, anyway. So I don't think saying something makes that true statement that doesn't make that true statement can be all that important - it's not really in doubt. Of course, making up quotes is a problem regardless, and the misquotation of the FWS judgement is the worst!

We still quote something my brother wrote when doing a project on bees at primary school: "The drones are the lazy boy bees".

My brother is 55. Family memories are long!

lazy boy bees

Nice one!

trouble with saying that kind of thing is that it suggests that if he had his knob removed it would be OK for him to use the female changing rooms. Some women think that, but many don't; and as we really don't want to get into pressuring people to have such surgery because it has consequences for them like that, I think we shouldn't go there.

How can having any fake content in there at all not undermine it?

Yes, it suggests that the whole thing needs to be withdrawn and every quote checked for accuracy.