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

Well spotted - neutrality in emails, lanyards, etc etc is true 'inclusivity.'

From TT:

pM Not an expert. Would discuss but not sure
NC Why are you not an expert
PM specifically around suffragettes and call to action. Same as I don't understand variations of terminology in different groups, eg in lesbian groups.
NC Badge here - shows pretty colours from pp flag

and from RCN. So if properly neutral RCN must be willing to sell similar badge in colours adopted by GC movement and showing RCN logo and legend. Complete parallel
PM Can't answer q
NC What's hard c it
PM Not my field of expertise and I can't answer the q.
NC Back to

‘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"

What??? Paedophiles mentioned, and Patricia Marquis refers to people’s ‘choices’.

PM missed a trick in saying that Pride merch is there because it would sell more than gender critical merch.

She just doesn't know! How could she possibly know?

I mean she's just the Executive Director of RCN England. A roaring 'business' that takes money off hundreds of thousands of women to 'protect their rights'. How could she be expected to know?!?!? This isn't her area! 🙄

I understood the pride merch was given away free.

Yes it's interesting how she has gone from being all gung-ho about her job at the beginning of the questioning, to knowing less and less about anything.
In fairness, I don't think she has 'not recalled' anything yet, maybe that's the next line of defence.

From TT:

engagement session. You've signed off this quote - announcement of series of sessions to listen to members re FWS SC judgment. You had and have a reasonable understanding of what it's about
PM Yes
NC First case where GII/sex realism had come to head in SC
PM [agrees not sure of details]

NC It was whether TW with GRC count as w for EA
PM Yes
NC Decided for EA sex had to mean bio sex
PM yes
NC SC saying TWAW
PM for EA, yes
NC resounding yes for sex realist position.
PM Yes, and also highlighted that...yes, it did

Because no one would actually pay for it.

Good point

I’m enjoying this, but is it showing the issue with the law? That Sandie was discriminated against because of badges?

Surely she was discriminated against because the RCN doesn’t care about women - the KC said so and they had to get rid of a BDSM guy who had a gang of other senior men who were sexually harassing the students and staff at conference. the RCN ignored the other witnesses plights and points, they hate women.

From TT:

NC Reads c wanting to support t members, RCN continuing to champion rights etc across profession. Do you agree it's mournful in tone
PM Don't understand mournful
NC Don't know the word?
[PM does}
NCYou're presenting as bad news that members will find upsetting.
PM Not the intention

NC Nothing to say that any in your org may be happy re this.
PM no
NC Were you aware was a RCN member there weeping with joy
PM Not aware member there
NC Aware w have been demonised and deprived of livelihood
PM Yes
NC Nothing to acknowledge feeling of these members
PM I acknowledge that

Or were happy to pay for it from Union funds in order to promote GI - I'm not sure giving this merchandise away is a neutral act

PM Don't understand mournful
NC Don't know the word?

😂

I would love to know how many they produced and how many they have left.

The profit and loss would be stark, I would imagine.

Don't nurses all have to wear that Pride lanyard?

This kind of dissembling is great for NC: she gets to make the point twice in front of the judge and have the witness look stupid, to boot.

The badges are showing that despite their assertion otherwise the RCN had picked a side.

From TT:

NC And nothing here c rage and defiance of TIMs in response to judgment
PM No
NC Must have been aware of furious reaction. Men saying will use w toilets anyway. Great deal of anger
PM Great deal of anger on both sides. Response and reactions have been horrible to witness

NC [to slides of engagement sessions] Third slide primes members to think of judgment as something that will give rise to need for emotional support
PM We already knew cos of reactions before sessions that it was emotional thing for many members, some members,

I've not seen that many in the past few months. I've seen a lot of bog standard NHS type ones though.

I cannot believe she said rage and anger on both sides re SC judgement

That ' fault on both sides' narrative has been very influential.

I often smoke a cigar and drink champagne when I’m angry.

From TT:

NC [to other docs] Transcript of Jo Galbraith Martin's exposition of legal position. Most is perfectly capable exposition of judgment. But [to page] we see that she summarises EHRC interim advice [reads] TW shouldn't be permitted to use w facilities in workplaces/services

and v versa. Clear and simple
PM Yes
NC And some shouldn't be permitted, eg masculine looking TM
PM Yes
NC And TW shouldn't be in position where no facilities available.
PM Yes
NC Clear, easy to understand and easy to implement in workplaces. Will be unisex facilities

From TT:

PM Not sure always easy but should be done
NC And unisex, c washing facilities
PM Yes
NC Facilities in lockable rooms, single use, can be used by either m or w. Clear
PM Yes
NC Situation we are all familiar with at home
PM yes
NC Martin guidance is a summary of EHRC

and is clear.
PM Clear to me, yes
NC She then goes on to say for members it's uncertain and difficult to know approach until more guidance. Employers need to give great consideration to sss facilities before make changes.
NC RCN lawyer is taking it on herself to second