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

I also think it's lovely that they ask, given they know that we have differing opinions.

Unlike a certain group of men who never asked about invading female spaces.

Suggesting women on the sex and gender board, are being misogynistic, towards them tells me them is a woman of the male variety.

And yet we are not decent people, odd that.

That was in response to Muraski.

Sorry if continuing this is further derailing — but I guess it’s late and there are no proceedings going on, so forgive me. 🙏🏻

But that’s quite a different context from the one I had in mind. I was thinking more of the kind of Christian who tells a gay person that they are “praying for their salvation from sin”. The Christian may feel entirely righteous and morally certain in doing so, but I think it’s easy to see how the recipient might experience that as deeply patronising and demeaning: something fundamental about their core being is being treated as defective and in need of correction or rescue.

That was the comparison I was trying to draw. It’s the combination of moral righteousness and superiority with a refusal to accept the other person’s own understanding of themselves and their interests/ needs. That comparison seemed especially relevant to the pp's claim to be supposedly defending the so-called “sex-based rights” of “women who think they are men" (trans men).

OK, it was unclear you meant that.

But I think that the clarity that transmen should have maternity rights, for example, was very important.

supposedly defending the so-called “sex-based rights” of “women who think they are men" (trans men).

The poster was not supposedly defending the sex based rights of women with a trans identity, the poster is defending their rights. Or do you think that women who identify as men should lose maternity rights and protections which as the Supreme Court pointed out would be the end result of not having sex based rights based on sex?

Would Lacksie really prefer that transmen are not protected throughout pregnancy and birth because they think they are men?

My point is that it’s wild to insist that you are defending the rights of trans men while simultaneously holding a worldview that dismisses, refuses and ridicules their own account of who they are and of their lived reality.

Of course protections around pregnancy, related healthcare and parental leave matter, but those can be provided for perfectly well within a trans-inclusive framework. You don’t need to deny someone’s identity in order to achieve that.

But you do need to acknowledge that they're women, or they wouldn't need those rights.

There is an existing framework to deal with pregnant women in employment. Why should a further framework be created to deal with the handful of women who claim to be men then get pregnant.

Just take the ideology out of it.

To provide appropriate physical healthcare, you need relevant information about a person’s physiology. That doesn’t require imposing a particular identity label or broader social category on them; it requires accurate information about their body, just as healthcare routinely requires all sorts of other information about the body.

You can acknowledge the anatomy relevant to pregnancy, childbirth or reproductive healthcare without denying a person’s lived reality or their own knowledge of themselves.

Because minorities matter too. The fact that only a small number of people are affected doesn’t make their needs irrelevant.

If an existing framework can accommodate trans men without difficulty, great. If aspects of it exclude, misdescribe or disadvantage them, then it is perfectly reasonable to adapt the framework so that it works for everyone who needs it

I agree. I despair of those who seem compelled to point out that someone on the internet is wrong. It's absolutely fine to ignore them.

A woman claims to be a man, OK that's her new lived reality.

Then she decides to have a baby. She has now chosen the most female of lived reality options of a woman.

If she can't make her sodding mind up about lived reality why should anyone else play along?

Le sigh.

I'm so over this.

Anyone on the entire planet who gets pregnant is from the female half of the human population.

That is lived reality.

Well the lived reality of being pregnant is being female, there's no way around that.

There was a case a while ago where the medics adhered too much to the identity which resulted in a stillbirth as they didn't do some of the tests they would normally, due to buying into identity. Actual sex matters.

McConnell is a good example of this. Who recently went to court to deny she is the mother of the children she gave birth to, but is in fact their father.

Damn it, I'm biting.

Due to my personal experiences (which I am not going into, but are extremely bad), I am a big supporter of single-sex wards (and also other single sex spaces) actually being single-sex. No males, however they identify. I am also a big supporter of being able to request single-sex intimate care or a chaperone in medical/care situations.

Dr Upton and his assertion that he would treat a female patient who asked for a female doctor shows what sort of person he is. Freda Wallace sending porn to a disabled woman who supports single-sex intimate care shows just what sort of man he is.

A person defending sex-based rights for all people (and we all have a sex, even if we don't like it or have a DSD) is not the same as "a Christian who tells a gay person that they are “praying for their salvation from sin”.

The people who are happy to use unisex spaces instead of single-sex ones are free to do so. The people who don't feel it is necessary to have single-sex intimate care don't have to request it.

What I can't abide is this desire to take single-sex spaces and care away from those who do need it.

Maybe some people are actually interested in having a conversation?

anyway I'm going to bed so won't derail further. I promise to be a good girl and discuss nothing but the legal matters while proceedings are going tomorrow. Although I have a busy work day so will probably miss most anyway. Adieu.

Does anyone know what witnesses are scheduled tomorrow?

TIA and especially thank you to all the copiers and pasters

Well, thank fuck for that.

I agree.
There’s another current thread elsewhere on this board that people might remember?

Be Kind 2.0 and the ‘persuasive TRA’

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5536989-be-kind-20-and-the-persuasive-tra

edited for clarity

You can acknowledge the anatomy relevant to pregnancy, childbirth or reproductive healthcare without denying a person’s lived reality or their own knowledge of themselves.

And we do that through the use of the words male/female/boy/girl/msn/woman and pronouns he/she/etc. Those words explicitly relate to sex (and development).

I have found lackses insights helpful - made me think about it all and I concluded that I have absolute confidence that Sandie Peggie would care for a trans id person with professionalism in the moments. The wider issues are not to do with the interactions in A&E, it’s easy to provide person centred care for anyone no matter what their person circumstances or beliefs - this is basic. And it has nothing whatever to do with her right to privacy in the workplace and her unions failure to support her as she had paid them to do for 30 years.

RCN reneged on the contract between them.