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

Because they want to “swamp” peoples minds!

It's not challenging, pp have done it for decades!

.

No. It's been widely encouraged but is not compulsory. There are generic NHS ones as an alternative.

The fact you were doing the wrong thing for a long time is not an argument as to why you should carry on doing it!

What are they doing with these patients?

Oh the beclowning!

Waffle waffle, word salad, waffle waffle, word salad, very challenging and complex, challenges, need clarity, waffle waffle.

I love how NC is just letting her go on and on and on...

From TT:

guess what you agreed is clear
PM Don't understand it like that. Easy to define toilets, more tricky to provide in view of how provided in recent years. And expecting ppl to change use when they've been used to using facilities in a particular way. And still not been clarified as to where there are exceptions and when

ppl need to be catered for in health settings. Implementing in practice is difficult.
NC Ppl who have changed their appearance create problem.
PM Not individuals who create the problem but it is a problem. Change from practice for years and implementing it is a challenge

NC For great majority of ppl situation is clear. Irrespective of how much altered appearance, EHRC is saying should use sss,
PM Clear for eg toilets. re healthcare services there remains challenges . We have asked for more clarity re healthcare setting from EHRC and NHS England

ODFOD

aaaarrrrggghhhhh!!!!!

I'm starting to get angry. It must be nearly lunch time surely?

Not if they’re giving it away for for free. I think they could be seen as sort of campaigning for this GI stuff really. Paying for badges for people, to tempt personnel to get something for nothing. Some people can’t resist a freebie.

Ironically using mostly women’s contributions to campaign for, and promote an ideology that promotes the ability of men to encroach upon on their rights. Rendering women on the back foot, and being forced in response, to defend them. RCN not paying for any campaign material to give away as freebies for those women!

So firstly, RCN are using (largely) women’s sub money to pay to support this misogynistic movement. Secondly, the women are forced to pony up to pay for the enormous costs of court cases when they are adversely affected.

There is also the proportionality. Around 90% of RCN members are biological females while only a teeny tiny number are "trans" but once again the needs of the men in dresses outweigh those of all biological females.

.

From TT:

PM Majority of time will be straight forward but don't want our members having to decide
NC You may need more guidance. But simple conclusion from EHRC interim guidance and SC, nobody should be allowed to use sss of opposite sex
PM But there's PC of GR. Clear what SC has judged

on one level but more difficult re GR PC ppl.
NC If a m who says he's a w can't use w cr, not doing that to him cos of GR
PM Needs to be spaces suitable for everyone.
NC Not the q. If TIM told can't use w cr, not discrimination cos of PC GR

I wish she would ask that you understand that you are breaking the law.

Wow

So unclear. So challenging. So difficult. Its all so impossible and they need further guidance. So much guidance before they can tackle this thorny issue of men being in women's changing rooms. Because the supreme court judgement just wasn't clear enough for them

your wish is her command!

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

Of course it would. The Pride merch was free paid for out of members subs.

I’m having flashbacks to how it was at work. Just utterly blind to any other view than TWAW etc. Cannot and will not understand that some people disagree.

Edited to sort out random capitals.

From TT:

PM No but not if there's nowhere he feels comfortable
NC He needs somewhere to go, but it mustn't be the women's
PM Yes
NC [Reads Martin] That's nonsense. Men not allowed in w and vv. Not a knee-jerk, just complying with law
PM That para makes complete sense to me

NC So law is clear but need to dither in case of possible indirect discrimination. You are saying that
PM Yes
NC Guidance/SC wasn't unclear it was unwelcome
PM no
NC Widely unwelcome, lots of ppl angry and upset
PM Some were,

They should have to declare it as campaign funds in support of GII. I hope it didn’t go into any ‘miscellaneous’ column.

Clinging to the notion it is complicated, what about the GRA, means she has formed a very obviusly non neutral view.

She admitted the RCN are aware they are breaking the law over sss? Did she just do that?

Where the fuck was the consultation for women when they allowed men into our spaces?