Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #64

[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: www.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 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

Thread 63: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5581909-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-63 24 September 2026 to 27 September 2026

She's so articulate.

😱😵‍💫

NC done

From TT:

NC who had to be cautious?
BH GC ppl
NC Why?
BH Concern about being intimidated by TG RCN members. I've lived this and it's v intimidating
NC [new page] Yr letter from earlier this year
BH They were flying Progress flag at RCN headquarters and they have members with

different beliefs and religions. we didnt get a response from the RCN - the flag may still be flying
NC ANy other flags flown?
BH I cldnt tell you. I'm facing a number of NMC complaints incl one about misgendering

DH up

BH They were flying Progress flag at RCN headquarters in

But treat all PCs the same!

DH done

Wow DH can recognise a dangerous witness.

Taking lunch as DH sent Stuart off for lunch.

What? already? DH only lasts two minutes?
[stop sniggering at the back😂]

1000%

I've known men like that!

But it isn’t enough for SP to show that the RCN’s behaviour could possibly have been motivated by her protected belief

She first has to establish facts from which a reasonable tribunal could properly infer discrimination.

These two sentences have exactly the same meaning. The only difference is your emphasis: a skeptical "could possibly" vs a grand "could properly infer".

From TT:

NC Is RCN supporting you
BH No. As I'm totally disillusioned w them. I dont find them helpful and think they've abandoned their F members. They didnt get back to me as they said they would. They said they wldnt support me if I kept misgendering - it's ludicrous to suggest

a TG man is a woman
DH Good afternoon - I have very few Qs for you. Re the NMC proceedings - these were referred by yr employing trust?
BH No
DH How did they start them
BH Referrals from the public

DH One feature re Rose Henderson being in hte CR at yr hospital concerned their presence, but also hoe RH conducted themselves - making advances?
BH Yes, making comments
DH I have no further Qs
J You cannot speak to other witnesses. Shall we have an early lunch?

[break till 1:40pm]

"their presence"

Isn't this misgendering?

DH didn't dare ask any more questions 😂

That was better, but I still don't feel optimistic about this case. Only RCN witnesses to come now, Maybe there are some nicely incriminating documents for NC to take them to, here's hoping.

Surely not the aforementioned ex? That would be adding insult to literal injury.

Bwaaaak bwaaak, DH🐥😁

BH... They said they wldnt support me if I kept misgendering - it's ludicrous to suggest a TG man is a woman.

Says it all doesn't it!

These witnesses have painted a v compelling picture of a climate of fear within the NHS. I really hope the judge can see this.

I feel the same.

I also have the impression that there's thin disclosure here. Not casting aspersions, maybe the RCN ran these cases without committing much to paper or to electronic files.

There's loads on Twatter calling her a racist, yet here is JM going to bat for her.

That will stand against them, if SP establishes that their behaviour was detrimental and "could" have been motivated by unlawful discrimination. The respondent in that sitution is expected to have all sufficient evidence to show their behaviour was for other reason(s), and the burden of proof is on them to do so.

Can't take any chances, can we?

He had many faults but as far as I can remember that wasn't one of them. In fact after a bottle of creme de menthe quite the opposite!