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

Thank goodness. Lunch.

From TT

DH email from Marie Mason?
GT Norman’s PA DH Sean ? And Julia Hayward GT Part of RCN direct?
DH was that part of your request on behalf of SP?
GT yes
DH feedback was ‘unable to find any feedback from members’. Any other feelers out?
GT yes local reps, was advised no members had come to them directly.
DH aware of any more recent concerns?
GT no, still do walkabouts , no members have come forward this year

Justice Swift in the GLP judgement has no time for that argument!
45. It was suggested that it was material that the 1992 Workplace Regulations were made in exercise of powers in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and were not legislation “about discrimination”. I do not attach any significance to this point. The Regulations are to be construed on their own terms...
.. Given the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland on the meaning of “woman” and “man” in the EA 2010, any contrary reading of the same words in the 1992 Workplace Regulations would make the application of paragraph 2 of schedule 22 to the EA 2010 certainly less coherent, and likely impossible.

I'm sure GT is feeling super confident after this morning.

I wonder if she has any clue of what's coming?

Yes exactly, it’s not a conspiracy to use the “belief” terminology it’s legal precedent.

From TT

DH back to December 2025, email says no other members have come forward raising the issue of SSS
GT correct

DH February you respond to an email. There are other emails concerning an equality impact assessment. April also. 11th May. Last email to SP this year you checking in to assist with her return to work. Any response?
GT no response

DH did you come at any stage realise SP was dissatisfied with representation you provided?
GT no
DH did you treat SP differently to any other member?
GT no
DH and re her GC beliefs, did those colour your representation?
GT not at all

J break for lunch. We’ll start again at 2pm with cross-examination.

DH and re her GC beliefs, did those colour your representation?
GT not at all

🤔

I do hope NW is going to use the lunch break to view the bundle for the images of RCN member Fred Wallace.

Hard agree and cannot wait for the Naomiing to commence!

Further to the above points re "belief discrimination" I also don't understand why those who believe you can start bring cases under criminal law (the workplace regs) don't start doing so. My understanding is that this is much more difficult to do (than bringing a discrimination case) and it wouldn't be NC's or MG's place to do so because they are discrimination lawyers.

Maya Forstater interview

Interviewer 'It seems odd that what seems like simple scientific fact – the reality of biological sex, which is how humans reproduce – was described as a “belief”. '

Maya 'The piece of case law that defines a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act is Grainger v Nicholson – it’s about climate change. Mr Nicholson’s belief was that climate change is real and that it is urgent and important to act on it. That doesn’t mean that climate change is any less of a scientific fact, but his belief was about its personal importance.
Mr Nicholson’s whole belief was found to be coherent, weighty, and “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (which means not destroying others’ rights).
Similarly, my whole belief is not just that sex is real, binary and immutable (the science), but also that it is important this is recognised and we can talk about it, and protect rights based on it. What came into question is whether that destroys others’ rights. The Employment Appeal Tribunal said it did not. Making the argument about “belief” might seem strange, but it was the one that was open to us in the Equality Act.
Perhaps more important than the finding on “belief” was the finding on “lack of belief”. We pleaded both that my philosophical belief is protected and so is the belief of people who think gender identity is important. We had to prove that this was a coherent belief system. I remember reading Judith Butler looking for something to put in the evidence bundle to show coherence – I gave up on that one.
If belief in gender ideology is protected, so are the rights of people who don’t share it: it’s like being a “gender atheist”. This is important because it means you don’t have to have paid attention to the debates to have protection. Your grandma who knows (and is disturbed) that the person in the hospital bed next to her, who the nurses say is a woman when she can see they are male, is protected, even if she’s never thought about queer theory.
And the “belief” framework is helpful for organisations to find a way to deal with the debate, and to protect everyone. We already know how to live in a plural society where Muslims, Christians, Jews and atheists live and work alongside each other and get along. We know how to respect freedom of belief.
'

https://sex-matters.org/posts/freedom-of-speech/interview-with-maya-forstater/

Interesting.
I can't make up my mind whether she's be stimulating company with riveting arguments about original ideas, or a 'they're all wrong except meeeee'.

Either way, she sounds interesting - ooh I've just seen online that she's called 'The queen of Italian TERFs' - gets my seal of approval😄

I used to follow her but now have her blocked. I don't block lightly but she seemed to always be getting into bunfights with other gcs and seemed to have impossibly high standards. After a while the pattern was plain to see.

No one has produced any evidence that email was actually sent. I'd have made the IT bod one of the witnesses to explain how the system shows emails that have been sent. (1)
Central mailing is a good thing in a system tracking claims, complaints, grievances etc. You don't want that correspondence locked in individual email boxes - you want it all together in a single system.
Which should have iron clad controls around sending and evidence of sending.

(1) if the email had actually been sent.

That’s what I was thinking. How come writing ‘she’ does not instantly signify SF’s/the RCN position?

discussed with the member of the potential that this could be seen as discriminatory and is most likely what has caused the suspension.

As does how Stuart immediately goes to pointing out SPs ‘discrimination’ and completely ignores the reason she’s asking for help. She was not asking Stuart to explain to her why she’d been suspended. She’s asking for help to defend herself.

All these weasel words ‘l don’t know’ ‘maybe’ ‘no, that’s not true’ ‘happy to include suffragette merchandise in the store’ etc.

Frustrating if they’re sufficient for the RCN to receive a get out of jail free card and be allowed to carry on their merry TRA ways.

The relevant legislation is clear that only the HSE has the power to pursue a criminal case for breaching the Workplace Regulations. Nobody else can.

Alessandra Asteriti just posted this on X, which further explains her position on this:

'If you report your employer for not providing a safe working environment, nobody is going to ask on the basis of what belief you care for safety. But women? We are supposed to believe sex exists. Why I am the only one who sees what a fucking joke the whole Peggie tribunal is?'

Shades of Isla Bumba?
”I just copied other organisations and did not need to expend any critical thinking of my own”.

Edited to clarify an imaginary quote

I also used to follow Alessandra Asteriti but now have her blocked. She can have an argument in an empty room.

I think this probably explains why I have her blocked too.

Oh interesting. So it's not even possible to bring these cases in the first place!

But the union could have reported the breach to them.

When he said he'd forwarded an email to (I think) NP, I was getting flashbacks to Mr Singh in the Post Office case! Easy way out and all that.

There's a lot of evidence about RCN emails sent to SP. I don't know which were sent directly not involving the management system, whether some were sent directly via the management system, or whether those sent were then uploaded into the management system and then the shenanigans occurred of replacing the email address with the case number.

There are a number of routes that employees can use to advise the HSE that employers are not complying with the legislation that they regulate. That includes anonymous reporting online, and via a union and via a safety representative for some industrial sites.