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

Explain to me carefully where the policy of permitting trans identifying men into the women's changing room contravenes EA2010 with the emphasis of as clarified by FWS. (Changing rooms for employees are not a service, and the relevant section of the EA is part 5, not part 3). I think it's harassment of women to allow trans identifying men in to the CR, but that was clearly true before FWS.

What I struggle with is how to hold that it's not also harassment of people holding the PC of GR to instruct them to use the correct sex bathroom. That's still conduct "related to" a PC. There's no rule that conduct can be related to only a single PC at a time - conduct can be (and clearly is) related to both the PCs of sex and the PC of GR.

The FWS extract is going to be the biggie, as SK has actually changed the meaning of the quote by dropping both "although" and "trans", and then relying on the altered words to advance his argument.

I'm looking forward to what the press conference says at 3pm.

Mine is on a directive from on high instructing gov employees to “find ways to incorporate AI in your work to do more with less” (specifically use Copilot because it’s bundled with Office 365), and this was Big Sond’s attempt. The justice system is creaking right now - I would not be at all surprised to hear even judges are being told to just try to figure out how to make LLMs work for themselves, without anyone going ti thr effort of identifying and operationalising decent use cases for them.

There does seem to be a growing awareness that what we’ve been calling AI is anything but, so maybe there’s more than one silver lining to this ridiculous judgement. I can only hope.

Can anyone point me to the announcement of the press conference?

Perhaps the judge moonlights as press officer at Fife. How many revisions did that pile of arse whinging statement undergo?

AFAIK there isn't one, just word of mouth!

I'm feeling almost sorry for the Judge. Normally an ET would be a small quiet affair. He must be quite unused to the drama of threats, to having to perform in front of an audience and for his judgement to be picked apart so publicly.

I was assaulted in work as a 19 year old in my first job, which I never returned to or reported.

In my second job I was warned about a manager who another woman correctly figured had said something worrying to me. It never went any further than that but I was on my guard (and I suspect he had been quietly warned to behave).

In my third job I was sent a photo of some revealing clothing by another man, suggesting I wear it. I carefully saved the email in case anything worrying developed.

Then there was the creepy sixth form teacher who used to insist on having meetings about our test results one to one in his cupboard. I dropped his subject in order to avoid such future meetings.

Waves back🤗

So we're still waiting for corrections to misquotations in paras 793 and 803, before we even get to the logic.

I'm not. If he's made this much of a pig's ear of this case, is it reasonable to assume this is the only one he's bungled?

Also, is it just me, or is this correction just ridiculous? The quotation he uses now has nothing to do with a "hierarchy of protected characteristics".

791.
Secondly, there are different protected characteristics under the Act but there is nothing stated specifically within the Act itself, or the court’s decision, that one protected characteristic takes precedence over any other. In Forstater v CDG Europe and others UKEAT/0105/20 the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated:
“This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.”
We consider that quotation provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics

Is it worth having a sweepstake on how many times the bloody deckchairs on the Titanic get rearranged?

He's doing that teenager thing of desperately looking for a quote to support the argument he wants to make

a Certificated Fuck Up.

(edited for grammar)

You may be able to argue harassment from instructing them to use the correct sex bathroom, but it does not follow that they should then be allowed to use the opposite sex bathroom.

Has anyone looked for where the quote about heirarchy of protected characteristics may have originated from, since many of us felt it seemed familiar?

I've tried but my searching skills aren't brilliant.

Not just you.

We're going to need a bigger Certificate, Sandy

Won’t be his first.

But there is something uniquely batshit about the gender woo cases…..

Even if EJ Kemp is a bit dim, I suspect it may have dawned on him that this case is the biggest he's ever done (or will do, now), & that therefore attention to detail would be important.

I have a dr's appt at 3😡
Maybe I can call in sick?

To MyAmpleSheep and others - I appreciate the way we have been able to ask questions and suggest interpretations, and have them challenged, disproved or contradicted by posters with more relevant knowledge, without animosity.

Not only is it great to be able to discuss things, including disagreements, in a 'collegiate' kind of way, but it also shows that we have maintained a level of objectivity about the judge and the judgement - I've tried a few 'In fairness to Big Sond...' posts, which were countered by other quotes form the judgement that disproved my reading, and other posters have explained what rules a judge has to follow..

I appreciate all that

OK, I laughed out loud at this.

updated judgement is here, just the forstater quote it seems.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Peggie-v-Fife-Health-Board-and-another-Certificate-of-Correction.pdf

You're right. It doesn't.

He's starting to look really desperate.

I read online that he was the judge in the Gillian Philips employment tribunal in 2022.