Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #65

[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

Thread 64: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64 27 September 2026 to 29 September 2026

From TT:

No deprecating but can see that
NC Deflecting away from w
PM Don't agree
NC But talking c discrimination - deflect attention away from specific problem of misogyny
PM Don't agree
NC Members wouldn't think taken seriously
PM Disagree. This section is about that.

NC RCN Has denied adopting GI/ideology belief. So tribunal reasonable to think RCN understands this.
PM Yes.
NC Will use ideology
PM Discrimination not my area of expertise
NC G ideology - others have agreed that this is claim that what determines if someone is a m or w

Never willing to actually admit that embracing the one means rejecting the other - when it obviously, evidently does. The inequality is stark. 'Tat' and all.

The fear to do so proves NC's point really.

I expect tat is incoming.

I would like her to be asked, if TW are TW, what spaces do they use?

From TT:

is not their sex but their belief
PM Not sure but could be
[GII is G ideology]
PM Not the definition but the exclusivity of the definition I'm struggling with.
NC Not sure what you mean by exclusivity. NP agreed difference between GII and GC is opposition between

TWAW and TWAM. Make sense to you.
PM It does make sense. I'm trying to articulate TWATW as opposed to TWAW.
NC Do you say that;s RCNs position on matter
PM Don't have a position
NC TWAW - your position.
PM no
NC Difference between ppl say TW should have access to all f sss

.

It's the exclusivity of the definition I'm struggling with

Kinda the definition of a definition I would have thought, to exclude all bits that aren't the thing you are defining

oh, it's so awkward when words have meanings. Love how NC dealt with "TW are TW"... Is it RCN's position? no Is it your position? no. Well then, setting it aside...

Oi That should be behind a trigger warning.

She is so wary. It was revealing that she threw in 'I'm just a witness of fact, not an expert'.

.

Oh, I did not have that on my bingo card for today.....

Who had statistical knitting, furries and adult babies on their bingo cards?

When did exclusive become a dirty word. It used to mean good things.

Love you Naomi.

Ooh, where's that series of words uttered by NC? We're going to need a bigger list.

This is an uncomfortable line of questioning for PM.

From TT:

including prisons, etc, and those who say no
PM []
NC Reads c RCN hasn't a position. Your understanding?
PM Yes. Can't hear you very well
NC Will try to speak up.
NC Statement from you [on docs] you use LGBTQIA+ Can you tell tribunal what all stand for. recounts - and 'others'

NC And +
PM Ppl id in v many ways. Some as furries.
PM Yes
NC You know a sexual fetish where dress up as animals
PM Not particularly
NC Some men id as babies and toddlers
PM Yes
NC So when say stand in support, little worrying to express your support for some whose parameters

I wish that NC had brought eunuchs into the + category.

There's still time...

Here she gooooooooes

Naomi's had her Weetabix in the break

I'm enjoying the "this is what you are actually supporting" route

From Nick wallis.
NC so when RCN stands in support of LGBTQIA+ members its a bit worrying standing for a group whose parameters can't define
PM yes
NC and that might be people who are furries, adult babies or paedophiles
PM "that's a judgment I'm not going to comment on in terms of people's choices"

.