Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #59

[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), 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.

Following handing down of the judgment on 8 December 2025, on 11 December 2025, it was announced by Sandie Peggie and her legal team that they would be pursuing an appeal.

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.

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 2025 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
Thread 57: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5457132-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-57 9 December 2025 to 11 December 2025
Thread 58: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58 11 December 2025 to 12 December 2025

You could make that argument, I suppose. I wouldn't find it very convincing since there are many other reasons people might choose to use it.

I have myself used the separate third space toilet because I wanted the privacy of a self-contained room with a sink in it to sort out period-related clothing issues and didn't fancy standing around half naked rinsing the gusset of my trousers. It's not my first choice most of the time, but I do like knowing it's there if I need it.

Edited to add: I suppose the key is to simply make a unisex self-contained option available without labelling it as 'a third space for our trans identified colleagues'. If it's positioned as just another option for everyone, with their various reasons for using it, then the assumption of a specific inference goes away, or os at least weakened.

I’ve been looking forward to this.
I think I have a few subscriptions to pass on. Pls PM me if interested with an email address.
I’ll try and sort tomorrow am.

I'm now heading out till late. There are nearly 700 posts to go before this thread is full. You lot can't fill it up before I get back, surely?

Only if there is an existing lack of awareness amongst colleagues as to their sex, which in the vast majority of circumstances is most unlikely.

I'm thinking it's possibly more the MN one, 'Are you on glue?',

We can give it a go!

Aargh!

That's why I'm sticking with saying they may have a case if facilities are not provided rather than saying they definitely do. I don't know where the courts would draw the reasonableness line.

My employer went the opposite hog and there had to be a female fire marshal in each area specifically to check the female toilets were empty in an evacuation.

Tom Harris says it like it is
MPs must recognise that the law applies equally to everyone

Well it depends....

Should Big Sond streak naked down his local High Street or The Fife Board put out an ill judged statement, we can make no promises. 😀

Quick question; if a legal judgement is so flawed and incorrect in law that it HAS to be appealed, why should the claimant have to pay for it? What if they couldn't afford to? It seems very unfair to me.

Yes indeed. And not the respondents fault either. Should come out of the judges salary!

that’d teach him!

Can I seek a shortcut to the answer on my musings, perhaps by directing this at @prh47bridge and test my theory that, although single sex toilets/ changing rooms are only explicitly framed as permissible exceptions (rather than requirements) would/could it not be the case that providing only mixed sex facilities that are multiple occupancy (either explicitly or in practice by allowing some men into those marked 'women') itself constitutes indirect discrimination against women because it is a provision, criterion or practice that (a) puts women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men; and (b) it would be unlikely to clear the hurdle of being a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, particularly given the practicable alternative of providing actual single sex facilities?

That seems like such a slam dunk to me that I accept I must be missing something.

Even if a permitted exception to the sex discrimination involved in providing single sex facilities is felt to be required in order to make the provision of single sex facilities a lawful possibility under the EA, (which can therefore be taken into account when considering (b) in the indirect discrimination claim) I can't for the life of me see why this would not be a slam dunk in the case of service providers, who have para 29 of Sch 3 to work with.

In that case, surely they're allowed to do it under Sch 3 and failing to do it diadvantages women as compared to men, even though ostensibly the mixed sex rule applies to all - i.e. establishing indirect sex discrimination would be as close to falling off a log s one can get?

Does the difficulty in a workplace context come from a feeling that employers may not be 'service providers' to a 'section of the public' for the puposes of section 29 and therefore the lack of directly applicable Sch 3 exceptions may mean the provision of single sex facilities is actually actively prohibited in workplaces under the EA unless and until the Workplace Regs are taken into account (and it is established beyond doubt that man and woman have the same, ordinary, biological meaning there as we now know they have in the EA)? It sounds absolutely mad to me that single sex facilities in workplace would be actively unlawful under the EA by itself of the WRs were withdrawn but I stand to be (actually) educated!

I can offer to stand you a drink in The Bluestocking as payment for your indulgence?

I dunno, if NHS Fife put out an ill judged statement, a few eyes might roll but it wouldn’t necessarily be a surprising and post-generating event. If however the Board issued a sensible, well-judged statement, then I suspect 700 posts wouldn’t come close to being enough 😂

I like a challenge.

This thought is nonsense.

It’s your workplace - you have to comply with all sorts of policies or risk disciplinary action. Who better to police the toilet by putting up a sign that says Women’s Toilets and any biological men go in you discipline them for breaching policy.

You’ll soon be told if a man turns up if your employees know you’ll do something about it.

@TheHereticalOne

erm, @prh47bridge is a man, (apparently with two arms) so he would not be allowed in the Bluestocking pub itself, but you could arrange to meet him in the staunch alley where other men who support our cause are allowed to congregate.

mind out for android though as she might want to add an arm to him.

It's not something I've ever thought about before but is seems horrifically unjust that both parties have to fund their own side of an appeal that is at least in part brought about by judicial watery.

It goes into such detail about ensuing there is a way to dry your hands. They literally ensure the place is being looked at regularly. That’s the way to police it - spot checks from cleaners at least daily…..

And back to other analogies but we make speed limits - we don’t hand wring that someone might breach on. If they do they get caught & deal with the consequences.

Well, Leonardo did not do something about it, nor has the ET told them to, and that remains the state of affairs until overturned on appeal.

Curses. Do we have any of those fabric beermat runners I can take out to him with his drink to use as a little shawl? Bit nippy out.

That might have sounded ruder than I intended. Leonardo and Fife etc let it happen because everyone got brainwashed by cult thinking. They had no policy and didn’t consent initially in both cases.

I object to any purported judge who says - we can’t decide on this statute because employers would have to manage their estate and control where employees go. Employers are the best to control employees because they give them money every month!

It can be very warm outside the bluestocking if you want it to be it can be almost anything you want it to be.

If an employer provided only male and female toilets/changing rooms and, for the purposes of this argument, provided accessible facilities for those with disabilities or access needs within such single sex facilities, then I think they're is a significant issue for some women who identify as men.

Such a woman may have had a double mastectomy, taken testosterone, have male pattern baldness, facial hair and "pass" as a man e.g. Stephen Whittle or Buck Angel for two examples, one who says he is a man, the other who acknowledges he's female.

The FWS judgment was clear that such women must not use the men's facilities because they are women and men are entitled to single sex facilities. But it is arguable (again as per FWS) that their presence in the women's facilities could be considered intimidating. Such women would need a third facility to comply with the law. If one wasn't provided, they would have a case of discrimination against their employer.

And if they did use the women's, that might out them as trans. So much as I know some people want accessible facilities to be in single sex facilities with cubicles for safety reasons, having an accessible toilet with a sink inside is the safest for their situation.

Many assume these are just for people with disabilities but many disabilities are not visible - someone with a stoma for example, or autism where they have a sensory issue around noise or smell.

Some people use them because they want privacy for a poo or menstrual issue.

So I feel very strongly that a third accessible facility is required so that trans men don't out themselves and comply with the law.