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

That ‘Rose’ fellow’s commenting, doesn’t change that male voyeurism was being enabled in the female changing room. He was enabled to get an eyeful of women in a state of undress, whether he was saying things or not. Non consenting women.

The comments he was moved to make, just add to the abuse (I’m sure voyeurism (even without the comments) is a sexual offence), as obviously it was inflicting more discomfort, and making sure the woman knows he is gawping at her in a state of undress. Quite the creepy power trip. ‘I’m in here peeping at your body, and there is nothing you can do about it because the big nobs said it is ok.’

Also, wasn’t he going around with holes in his underpants, around his penis and testicles area, so that the flesh of his penis and testicles were exposed to women in the female changing room? Again, I think exposure, or flashing is a sex offence.

That 'Rose' was being trained up to work round people who would be under a general anaesthetic, along with the reports of his behaviour, makes me really uncomfortable.

It was blueberries 🫐. My rhubarb hasn't arrived yet. Didn't take as long as I thought.

No evidence Sandie ever treated anyone differently because of their race or colour. However the paedophile subjected Jennifer to racist abuse when he was prevented from physically attacking her.

I wasnt watching Jennifer but I think some of the comments about her evidence do not reflect the reality of being black in the uk. She was having to relive being called a n... many times and being lunged at by a man from a high security prison. Being from high security suggests either the sexual abuse was really appalling or he had also committed other, possibly violent, crimes. He would have had prison staff with him who would have had to restrain him. Her interactions with authority are likely to have included less positive responses than a white person would have. Her fear of losing her job is greater based on the knowledge that black women have higher unemployment levels. She's done well to become a senior nurse but her life experience is not that of a white woman.

I think he denied some of the accusations about the holes in his underwear and his comments, but I forget which exactly.

Oh, what a mess the world is. We just have to keep trying.

It is telling that Rose and Upton are men who are both in a sexual relationship with a women, and yet just because they say they're women, the high ups in the NHS and the Unions falling all over themselves to allow them to change in women's changing rooms. The hierarchy of both NHS Fife and RCN did have any regard for the women who would have to undress in front of heterosexual men.

Aside from his undeniable presence in the female changing room even after being made aware that his female colleagues were unhappy. That by itself demonstrates a lack of respect for other people's boundaries.

Completely agree with all that, but I was watching, and what doesn't perhaps come over so well from TT is that she was literally not answering the questions. E.g. there was an email in which someone from RCN referred to some reading they'd advised her to do. Naomi asked her twice or three times what that reading was, and the closest she got to answering was to say it was her own statement - which didn't make sense. Naomi suggested that perhaps she didn't remember, and that if so that was ok, but she didn't agree to that either. There were several exchanges of that form.

No — they are not the same, the case law is clear exactly on this distinction.
“Could possibly have been discrimination” means the evidence is compatible with discrimination as one possible explanation. “Facts from which a reasonable tribunal could properly infer discrimination” means there must be enough evidence for a tribunal rationally to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that discrimination occurred. The Court of Appeal expressly said that facts showing only a possibility of discrimination are not enough to shift the burden

She's still in the reliving the trauma every time she thinks about what happened stage. It was painful to see her so lost in it still.

I agree, JM was a bad witness, she's been through a lot, and it doesn't sound like she's coping with it very well at all. Maybe Christian Voice could find some way to support her, seeing as her case has supported their agenda, maybe it's time they focus on helping JM now.

Yes, she did seem to be in a very bad way still. I hope someone is helping her.

I think you're mixing up two things - detrimental treatment, and the reason behind it.

Clearly SP has to demonstrate facts to show she was treated detrimentally (on the balance of probabilities). She does not have to show on the balance of probabilities the reason was unlawful discrimination.

Going back to Igen:

it is for the claimant who complains of sex discrimination to prove on the balance of probabilities facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the employer has committed an act of discrimination

So let's assume that there is no adequate explanation from the RCN for their behaviour (whatever it may have been) - could that be unlawful discrimination?

Going on:

In deciding whether the claimant has proved such facts, it is important to remember that the outcome at this stage of the analysis by the tribunal will therefore usually depend on what inferences it is proper to draw from the primary facts found by the tribunal.

The primary facts of the case are subject to the "more likely than not" test. Not the inferences it is proper to draw from them. That's at the discretion of the tribunal.

It's striking how I'm these cases, the roles of victim and perpetrator seem to get reversed...

Is JM still working, is there somewhere to send a card?

Maybe via the Christian Legal Centre, who supported her?

I wish this was like the hunger games and we could send in some cough sweets by drone to Naomi.

I don’t think that’s quite right. Proving detrimental treatment, while showing that discrimination is one possible explanation, isn’t enough to shift the burden.

Section 136 requires her to prove facts from which the tribunal could properly infer discrimination. Madarassy is quite clear that a difference in treatment, even alongside the relevant protected status, may establish only a possibility of discrimination and is not enough without “something more”. The underlying facts relied on to reasonably infer that “something more” have to be established on the balance of probabilities.

The fact that the RCN treated her detrimentally is one necessary part of the case, but it does not by itself shift the burden - even if discrimination could be one explanation . There still has to be some factual basis connecting that treatment to her protected belief. Only once that prima facie case is established does the burden move to the RCN to provide a non-discriminatory explanation

That's my understanding of the law anyway.

Are we all ready for spontaneous rounds of variations of "Fuck off" posts this afternoon whilst listening to SF?

I'm sure there will be a few moments.

It's so weird because I see this happening too but from exactly the opposite direction

Judge is in the room

It is beyond me why women contjnue to pay membership fees to any union which prioritises the desires of a miniscule number of men, over the dignity and safety of 51% of the population.

DH starting now

From TT

Session begins. Witness Stuart Fraser, Sandie Peggie’s RCN representative, takes oath.

The RCN flying a progress pride flag (and not a sufragette one), selling progress pride merch (and not GC merch), and saying they wouldn't support people unless they used transpeople's preferred pronouns seems to me to demonstrate the likelihood of institutional animus towards GC people and ideas, and more than reach the threshold of "something more".

NC has blocked ears.