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

Continuation thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584074-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-66

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

This balancing word needs to be binned generally. It's being taken far too much to mean 'women have to budge over and put up with'. It means parallel provision. Unfortunately it is going to have to be accepted that mixed sex does not work for all women, we are not going to burn women as witches for having needs and feelings and existences that inconvenience a man who wants to be treated as if he was a woman, and that he can have his needs met but not at the expense of hers. There must be women-only provision available, and he has to deal with that.

I understand it's hard, it involves facing that TWATW and not W, but this is the reality. Why should women be expected to bear the burden and pay the price of losing access so that he is spared this hard?

I did wonder whether this was the point where Patricia had the 'hang on, are we the baddies?' moment.

I don’t see there’s balancing to be done. Men who identify as women don’t gain any rights by doing so; so what’s to balance?

They never actually mean inclusive though anyway. They mean ‘inclusive of this to the exclusion of that’.

Plus he was a beery swine according to Monty Python so possible double vision of many identical tins without labels.

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.

Ffs, she hasn't read or understood the SCJ or EHRC guidance then has she?

NO, the PC of GR has no bearing on whether single sex women's provisions say no to all men regardless of GI.

If laymen get this, wtf is the matter with her? The point is there is no guidance capable of getting these people to process that the answer to trans identified men is sometimes no. And the job is to help those men deal with this and find alternatives, not to endlessly fuck over women.

These are supposed to be people good at supporting employees. Trained even.

I think that PM is siding with the NHS and TIM’s as opposed to representing the interests of the overwhelming female members interests, which as NC pointed out, without any consultation, it would be easy to surmise that her members would prefer SS facilities.

I think PM is in a muddle as to where the RCN duties lie.

Doubt it.

How can the be so obtuse!

Maybe part of the problem is that the judge in SP's own case didn't seem to understand this point?

I'm catching up so maybe this has already been expanded on

The free badges are a catch 22 for the RCN

Scenario 1
'We sell loads of them'
The full retail price is £4.95, By making them free they are effectively saying 'we are preapared to lose 600,000 * 4.95 = 2.97 million pounds in revenue to support of GI belief'
Writing off nearly £3 million in revenue is not a neutral act

Scenario 2
'We don't sell many so we reduced the price them made them free'
The level of commitment of their members to GI belief does not clear the 'shell out £2 of my own money' threshold

Even he though, with that mad judgment, had to say that it was not good practice to have left SP in that situation once she stated the problem, that she and Dr U should have been separated and given different places to change, and that it was not reasonable to require a woman to just get on with it when she did not consent to (and in this case could not tolerate or access) a mixed sex space for extremely good reason.

Even he couldn't wiggle out of it. And that judgment is going to be shredded at appeal for extremely good reason.

The word has had scope-creep, hasn't it? I couldn't swear this is what happened historically, but my impression is that originally inclusivity was about including disabled people. In that context, it does mean just what it says - typically, and certainly in intention, nobody is excluded by including disabled people.

This exchange reported by Nick Wallis is enlightening.

NC so this is the SC deciding that TWAM
PM for the purposes of the EA

She claims to be ignorant about these matters then trots out a classic TRA argument that the Supreme Court deciding TWAM only applies to the Equality Act.

It really interesting and goes back to how all this is institutional capture happens. It reminds me of that ScotGov consultation EIA that simply ignored the sex category. It just doesn't even occur to people the including one group may actually exclude another.

Really. Not to mention, that specific bit of the EqA mentions 'reasonable adjustments' - with the impact on the provision and others being a valued part of the decision.

Worth pointing out that Nick Wallis' live tweets are (when things go well) available here, off X: https://genderblog.net/live-tweets/

(He said on X that they were available there, this morning, but at the time it didn't seem to be true so I didn't pass on the message! But they're there now.)

ETA and the HTML page header that the MN link has put in is misleading - nothing to do with Southwark there now!

Though he had to use made up quotes and very selective quotations to back up his position

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.
PM Don't know

She's one down from the top of the pile - right?
Management team don't seem to know a whole lot about what is going on

From TT: [tidying up!]

members re the judgment. Need to implement but there continue to be discussions around other areas NC That's the end of a topic. J You had said two hours

NC I will be longer than that. Most of this afternoon. But this is the last witness... J I thought it would be quicker than that. In that case we will take a proper lunch break. Back at 10 to 2. [ends]

Anyone with experience of ‘inclusion’ of SEN in schools would already have been profoundly sceptical of the term

https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/2105233871906210150

The end of this thread is nigh, big thanks to c&p-ers and to nauticant x

Continuation thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584074-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-66