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

NC He needs somewhere to go, but it mustn't be the women's

Clarity? Did somebody ask for clarity? Well there you go!😁

Mostly men decided.

From TT:

others werent'
NC And lots of ppl trying to create confusion.
PM Ppl pushing back
NC Martin guidance shows RCN have picked a side
PM> No. says clarity, but in implementing in balancing rights of t ppl, w and m, and in practical terms not just toilets but also care

facilities and in balancing and also considering which is significant change for some ppl needs to be done with sensitivity. Continues to be difficult to implement in some areas.
NC You describe what had to happen after SC as significant change which needs to be done with

"I am incredibly open minded about all adult choices and expression! Except for women who are making choices I don't agree with about not wanting to take their clothes off for men."

Seriously. When you're righteously proud of celebrating fetish but not of women's right to a single sex space to undress in wtf is happening between your ears? These aren't real values at all.

significant change for some ppl needs to be done with sensitivity.

Changing back to what was standard up to v recently was done with zero sensitivity.

.

All signs point north, no one could deny their bias. There is not event or statement that seems to promote women exclusively.

From TT:

sensitivity. For a w changing in ss cr for decade in trust that sign on door means not man, not even a tim.
Great change
PM Yes
NC ANd significant change for f members if management say man can change there
PM Yes
NC and Particularly significant for any f staff with history

of sexual assault to look up and see a man there
PM Yes. And for other women too
NC What steps did you take to ensure change to allow m in was handled sensitively re the w facing this
PM don't know
NC TU or employers - none asked w what they thought.
PMDon't know

ummmm.... that didn't say what I meant it to say!
but I think you got my drift thank you

Didn't they probably, maybe, do something one day at some point ?

NC is going to need another 2 hours

Lunch for an hour

I don't think this is going well for the RCN.

Maybe, but they can't put their hands on it no the now.

Right...

Chicken dippers or chilli con carne on baked potato?

From TT:

NC Looks like Martin has taken side of Tims not w
P:M Don't agree
NC Good news for your f membership - they had rights after all - Tims were privileged over w
PM Not what trying to do or intent
NC Carr report
PM Not seeking to challenge it. Trying to update

[TT hasn't yet said so that I can see but we're now on lunch till 1:50, NC having said she needs most of the afternoon, to the judge's evident annoyance.]

So this woman is a nurse of some standing yet she won't judge paedophiles or those to ID as babies or children. I do wonder what she'd advise when asked if those men should be placed on a children's ward as that was what they were requesting? And how she'd view the reactions of the parents of the children on the ward?

There are times when judging someone is not only the right thing to do but the necessary thing to do.

And this is a really key point - it was handled badly for everyone, and I had some sympathy with Dr U in this, regardless of everything else.

Due to management bias and personal politics and apparently lack of basic common sense, no labelling, no discussion, no attempt to explore the situation or think with balance.

Dump man in women's space to crack on with everyone taking clothes off together.

Expose women to shock, alarm, distress - because no clue or exploration as to feelings, backgrounds, needs of their own etc - in a moment with a man there which adds a LOT of emotional challenge in htf to handle it

Expose man to reactions of women and needs of women to get the fuck away and find somewhere single sex to change

Expose man and women to very difficult, upsetting conversations

Proceed to do fuck all about the problem.

Who on earth won from that mess? No one was protected at all.

It's crystal clear that the RCN were partisan, but I'm still not sure this case is going to tie up satisfactorily. Michael Foran said he's struggling with the start of term and isn't updating yet, which is sad, but I'm looking forward to his view.

We need someone else to c&p this afternoon please - I forget who said they were available?

They seem incapable of thinking through the ramifications of their "inclusivitivty" to its end point.

Whatever the outcome, I am so relieved to hear Naomi making sure this vile woman hears the truth about the cruelty she has helped enforce on women. From Nick wallis:

NC now you describe what was happening as a sig change that needed to be dealt with some sensitivity - now for a W whose been changing in the same ss CR for years or decades in complete trust that the sign means what it says on the door - it's a change if she is changing and meets the eye of a man. And management say she's a woman so she can be in there

PM yes
NC and many of your members will be survivors of sex abuse
PM yes
NC and its a partic sig change for W who are survivors of sex assault and rape PM it will be for other women as well

NC what steps did you take to ensure that change was handled sensitivity with your female Membership
PM don't know and don't know when it was done
NC truth nothing was done, neither unions nor employers asked women what they thought
PM I don't know

Aunt Lydia was cloned. These nasty women who don’t care one little bit for any other women are everywhere

Patricia can fuck right off with her 'balancing rights '. Women never wanted men in female only spaces. Men forced themselves into our spaces aided and abetted by people like you Patricia. There was no balancing rights in that decision.

God it makes me angry

About that value of inclusivity held in such high regard...

[Image attached]