Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #66

[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

Thread 65: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583663-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-65 29 September 2026 to 30 September 2026

I don’t think PM has a clue of how badly she came
across.

RCN is fucked. What member would trust them? Gender views aside: they don’t know their arse from their elbow

We didn't want to tell you for fear of you running off screaming

PM did them a lot of damage today

Could be, but then she's definitely responsible for some of that lack of knowledge. So it didn't help her to say it.

Thanks again to TT, the c&pers and all of you.

Not for the first time I am relieved I am a lady of independent means who doesn't need to go to work and put up with this absolute insanity.

Just got back and caught up on the threads. Thanks to all posters- when the regulators, those who drive policy and Unions are this captured by a misogynistic ideology, it's awful to see just how fast they ditch any consideration for women.
Even furries, paedos etc are considered more worthy of rights and protections than 50% of the population who are female.

Barrister time is usually presented as a multiple of time by the clock.

A ratio of 2.5:1 in this case.

‘Supplementary bundle p1007, transcript of the video introducing the SC engagement sessions. The last para on 1007 appears to make the point that there are exceptions and complications re healthcare workplaces’.

What is this being introduced??

I thought lawyer time was charged in 6 minute blocks. So if she meant 20 blocks, she was quicker than expected!

I struggle with how easy it has been for all these organisations to be persuaded the emperor is not naked.

To be fair - pronouns can be expressing GI but not necessarily. They're also quite handy for multi-cultural (or international) organisations where people don't know which sex is associated with which names, at least not for all the names. Unless it's face-to-face when people's sex is usually obvious.

I personally don't put my pronouns in anything. But I would see it as quite politically provocative to put "sex based" for pronouns in my email sig, much more so than putting the pronouns in, as I work with people who might not know that Amaryllis is a woman's name. And saying "sex based" would even be a bit rude - like sneering "you should all know Amaryllis is a woman's name".

And some of the software in my organisation likes to plaster pronouns all over the place automatically whether it needs to or not. So I make no assumptions about the politics of people who have pronouns.

Just a quick reminder that NC does not have to prove that RCN discriminated against Sandie because they are hostile to GC views. She has to convince the tribunal that Sandie did not receive the support she was entitled to expect and that RCN is hostile to GC individuals. If she succeeds on those two points, it is then up to RCN to prove that their failings in dealing with Sandie's case were not due to unlawful discrimination.

As a general comment, if you listen to any discrimination case in tribunal you will tend to come away thinking that the evidence is weak. The claimant rarely has any real evidence that unlawful discrimination has taken place. All they can do is point to things that suggest it might have happened. If we forced claimants to prove their case, most discrimination cases would fail. That is why all the claimant has to do is establish a prima facie case. The burden of proof is then on the respondent to prove that there has not been any unlawful discrimination.

I haven't been able to follow this hearing as closely as I would have liked, so I can't say whether NC has established a prima facie case, nor can I offer an opinion as to whether RCN has done enough to establish that their treatment of Sandie was not due to unlawful discrimination. But I am not surprised NC has not, as far as I can see, come up with any direct evidence of unlawful discrimination.

I don't think you need them in emails. And there have been examples of where indicating you are female results in slower responses and worse treatment.

Moreover, abstaining from pronouns altogether would make trans-identifying members uncomfortable according to PM.

NC But if member is in trouble eg for misgendering colleague, not going to make her feel comfortable
PM yes, but we have t members for whom opposite would be true. It's still a contested space

(Emphasis mine)

I think it couldn’t be clearer that the broad message to GC members of RCN is that when asking for single sex spaces to exclude TiM we will assume your behaviour to be discriminatory because we believe it to be discriminatory.

This is further compounded by the lack of research and training around the actual law. A lack of interest that presents on the surface as plausible deniability but, as NC, has shown is actually driven by fear.

The panel might decide that sufficient process was attempted in supporting SP, as, I think, ET panels tend to focus rather a lot on process as a safety net in choppy waters, and that has been an efficient defence mounted by DH.

Even if the panel were to decide sufficient process had been undertaken it would be very troubling of them not to comment on the failure of senior management to ensure their staff are able to represent their members’ interests more effectively.

Panels can be odd beasts and orgs like RCN are clever at plausible deniability but I think there is more than enough to persuade critically agile ET minds that there could never be any effective support for SP when they have effectively stuck their head in the sand about everything framing her case.

Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing if they have that agility until the judgment but I, for one, think that NC has shown the RCN to be exactly what they are, and show no sign of changing (that last resistance from PM about stating publicly that an email sign off with pronouns; sex-based would be be fair proves they are still in the grip of fear) and she has done it sooooo cleverly!

I am in aw.

There was some strong stuff in amongst the inclusive waffle.

Submissions will be interesting...

And another thread whizzes by!
Repeated thanks to all thread wranglers , c&p-ers and commentators.

It is going to be very hard for them to put aside what sounded very much like 'we are accepting and understanding of all people, including paedophiles, but not of women survivors of abuse or with disabilities who would like a single sex changing space' and not hear the obvious: that to them, these women are much worse.

Inclusive my arse. Inclusive involves actually having fucks to give about all characteristics, all needs, all people. Not just the current pet group.

I wish the 'both sides' line would be proven. Any twit in 20 seconds can pull up the death threats, extreme disturbed sexual violence threats, all of which are men against women, interestingly enough - the worst they will EVER come up with against women wanting single sex spaces is 'that's a man exhibiting a fetish' (with evidence.)

I was so glad you pointed this out, as you said it much better than i could have done.

NC it seems to me established at least a reasonable suspicion of motives.

Thanks to all the C&P crew and the thread ninjas!

I do think NC is making a pretty good job of putting across the bias running right through the RCN. Whether the judge also gets it, we will see.

(And a special ❤❤❤ to @MarieDeGournay for quoting a Judy Grahn poem a few threads ago!)

I believe that is referring to sessions run by the RCN to explain the Supreme Court ruling of April 2025 and its impacts.

Oh I have followed and C&Ped more than a few tribunals, this is just the first time I have bothered to time Naomi! (I'm a frequent name changer).

45 minutes between cuppas is my usual limit. The woman is a machine! I would need IV tea to function the way she does. We are so lucky to have her with us on TWSOH. 😉

Just a quick reminder that NC does not have to prove that RCN discriminated against Sandie because they are hostile to GC views. She has to convince the tribunal that Sandie did not receive the support she was entitled to expect and that RCN is hostile to GC individuals. If she succeeds on those two points, it is then up to RCN to prove that their failings in dealing with Sandie's case were not due to unlawful discrimination.

Naomi has done a grand job of showing institutional bias and RCN have made a pigs ear of defending that accusation.
My biggest concern is that the judge will not be persuaded that Sandie should have received more support. I'm hoping that there are three aspects to the support:

• legal support for a case against Fife
• practical support for providing single sex spaces
• support from the RCN to the wider female membership

I suspect RCN would manage to swerve the first and maybe the third, but the lack of recognition that Sandie was being discriminated against and was entitled to single sex spaces? I'm hoping the judge can see this.

The 'would it be ok for an employee to put 'sex based' quietly beside their pronoun label on ID' was a fairly major point.

Quietly representing being a person with sex based beliefs is not perceived as neutral. That by itself needs discussion and care, and the only possible reason for that is that it is provoking, or it is a position of dissent and challenge if you are a GI captured group.

All the denials about 'we're equal' went out of the window there, and she knew it.

I often think listening to this - it must come over that the holders of these righteous GI based beliefs are not proud of them. They never proudly state and defend them, they never openly own them. They wriggle and weasel in all directions to avoid actually stating that they hold them. The obvious conclusion is that they know they are wrong, and they know it is against the law, and they are not going to be caught in a place of impartiality saying things they know are indefensible and wrong if they follow actual law and impartiality.

If I was a TRA I'd be a bit hacked off about this. I lost count of how many times the cock crowed through that lot of denials this afternoon.

That is not the claim. The claim is that the. RCN did not provide a service to her for no other reason than her gender critical or sex realist belief which is a protected characteristic, and therefore discrimination.