Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #63

[nauticant]

TLDR version: Sandie Peggie vs Royal College of Nursing is currently being heard. The hearing started on Wednesday 23 September 2026 and is scheduled to end on Thursday 1 October 2026.

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 were of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claimed 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 after a prolonged process judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025. That judgment is being appealed and an appeal hearing is expected to take place in 2027.

Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against the Royal College of Nursing, against three senior managers who were witnesses in the employment tribunal - Dr Kate Searle, Dr Maggie Currer and Esther Davidson, against Carol Potter, the chief executive of NHS Fife, for victimisation, against NHS Fife for discrimination, and against its director of people and culture David Miller for harassment. In addition, Sandie Peggie is being investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council over fitness to practice.

The past proceedings were live tweeted by www.x.com/tribunaltweets. Tribunal Tweets are likely to be providing coverage in current and future proceedings. There's additional information on Tribunal Tweets' substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/.

Links to previous threads #1 to #60 can be found in this thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 60: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5461133-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-60 16 December 2025 to 8 January 2026

Thread 61: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5472628-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-61 8 January 2026 to 3 August 2026

Thread 62: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5562302-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-62 3 August 2026 to 24 September 2026

Because opinions are allowed. There have been some awful and untrue things said on here about Sandie (in my view libellous, far worse than calling a man a sexist pig) but they have been allowed to stand.

The problem with your argument is its central assumption: that gender reassignment can be reduced to beliefs about sexist stereotypes, such as which toys girls and boys should like. If that were true, I could see how you reached your conclusion. But gender incongruence cannot be explained that way, and the assumption is theoretically weak.

Regardless, I am aware this discussion is not the purpose of this thread. I was simply asking what OP meant by “claims to be trans”. I understood the discussion to be about the legal issues, and I wasn’t aware of any legal question about whether DU was lying or being fraudulent about his identity.

Think its Glasgow fair monday which means I can watch Bethany and Jennifer's evidence. Doesn't apply to Dundee I don't think so tribunal still ongoing.

I agree opinions should be allowed to stand. What I don't think should be allowed to stand is ruthless online bullying of a real individual simply because of their identity.

Yes, that's correct.

agree, very unfair to pigs (insert the white-on-white heart using imagination)

💚🐖 🐖💜

No one objects to people identifying as whatever they like. They object to them infringing women’s rights, lying and saying stupid things like “I am a biological woman”, when they’re not.

💚🐖 🐖💜 🤍

here you go 😀

It's nothing to do with his identity, it's to do with his long aggressive campaign against women.

The poster wrote: "Dr U CLAIMS to be a biological woman on the basis that he's not a robot and self IDs as a woman.

What he is, as well as a sexist pig, is ridiculous."

She presented no evidence that DU is a sexist pig other than the fact that he identifies as a woman. So yes that's just hurling online abuse at a real individual because of their identity.

If you want to justify the claim that DU is a sexist pig, please provide any evidence of sexist/ misogynistic things DU has said, that do not simply amount to statements about his own identity/ understanding of self.

Well claiming as a male that he’s a woman. What else do you need? And when women told him he shouldn’t be in the women’s changing room, as he’s not a woman, he got them disciplined. Yeah, sexist, misogynistic pig seems right.

If you do not think that 'trans' is about stereotypes, might I suggest starting a new thread outside of this specific one, detailing exactly what 'trans' is, maybe with a few 'differential diagnostic' details so that we can all be better educated about the topic?

A man insisting on his right to be accompanied by a non consenting woman in an enclosed space while he and she are in a state of undress, and persecuting her for her withholding that consent, is about as sexist as it gets.

She didn’t say that because of his identity. She said it because of his behaviour. Presumably she was one of those who watched the original tribunal and saw him performing woman there, and heard him describe his own behaviour and that of Sandie.

Did you? Because sexist pig is the least of the descriptors he earned. I’d have gone with misogynistic, narcissistic bully myself.

Well at least you've finally expressed an opinion, most of your posts so far have been nit-picking, pedantic scolding.

He's a man who's claiming to be a woman, which according to a certain batshit ideology makes him 'trans'.

He is however, a man and will always be a man so he will only ever be claiming to be a woman.
His claims to be a woman, don't entitle him to invade women's spaces, women are entitled to expect their spaces to be free of men.
The handmaidens of this ideology don't have the right to give women's spaces away, which is what all the court cases and ET's are about. Women fighting to regain what has been taken off then without their consent.
He wasn't being excluded he was not entitled to be in those changing rooms in the first places and SP's union failed to support her in her claims against her employer when NHS Fife failed to up hold the law that states employers must provide single sex spaces for their female (and male) employees.

A sexist pig is an informal, derogatory term for a man who holds strong prejudices against women, believes that men are superior, and treats women as inferior or as mere sexual object

Sounds like Upton to me.

He went into a single sex changing space for women where he knew he shouldn’t be. And when he was asked to leave, he complained about Sandie and called it a hate incident.

if that isn’t sexist what is it?

Calling someone a “sexist, misogynistic pig” simply because "he's a male that claims to be a woman" is a personal attack on his identity. I think it should be possible to have a conversation about who should use which changing rooms without hurling online abuse at a real person simply because of their identity. It's really not ok. Likewise it ought to be possible to discuss gender critical ideas without hurling abuse at trans people simply for being trans. I really think mumsnet should consider that line.

@Lacksie the man you are defending from what you perceive as bullying, systematically marshalled Fife hospital’s leadership against Sandie, excluding her from the changing room, then her department, then her job.

Yes, he was definitely the terribly marginalised and most vulnerable one in the room.

Happy to if that would be of interest.

I’d love to discuss that with you.

The problem with your argument is its central assumption: that gender reassignment can be reduced to beliefs about sexist stereotypes

The assumption so aptly demonstrated in evidence and while giving evidence, by Upton:

Girly clothes ✅
Girly hair ✅
Performative girly demeanour ✅
A tendency to histrionics ✅
A poor grasp of logic ✅

No, it's not an attack on his identity, it's a judgment based on his behaviour.

But the row was not about which changing room he used. That could have been settled easily behind closed doors.

It was his insistence that a woman must be in the changing room with him, by his rules she couldn't leave him to change, then go in to change her menstrual-blood soaked scrubs in private without a male observer.

Her presence, and her lack of the basic right to withhold consent, was the issue.

As I said, unfair to pigs. But very sexist.

His behaviour of.... claiming to be a woman.

No, the way he has bullied Sandie after the event by using management / HR as his stooges in a bid to get her sacked.