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

not just me who was finding the umming annoying then...

From TT:

NC So the underlying reasoning of SC could ot be clearer: SSS and exceptions are there for a reason, reasonable and are rendered unworkable with a reading of sec as certificated. The exceptions in the EA must be read as meaning bio sex and are entitled to rely on these protections on basis of bio sex exceptions

NC cannot allow some sub category of men into womens' spaces and this was the implication of the SC judgement. Perfectly summarised by Jo Galbraith Martin. Despite this at the end of her account in her video contribution in engagement sessions you see what followed:

spoke too soon - now she's getting into her stride!

From TT:

A tsunami of obfuscation and denial from HR pros, activists immediately got to work to insist it was all confusion, we had to wait for guidance, we have top consult, nothing could be done. But these were not a change in the law, a clarification. Even if it had been

Even if EDI/HR and law sectors thought sex didn't mean sex clearly and many were profoundly upset and surprised by FWS even if this had been an actual change there is no excuse for obfuscation, denial and defiance.

[something really odd has happened to my browser and I can't double check right now, sorry for any errors]

She's normally this umm-y.

Well maybe she has been more hesitant-y after the umm-ys then!

edited to be more precise

From TT:

Supposing EA amended, say to add social class. You would not expect HR/EDI to kick up a cloud of denial, to say no one could expect to be able to define? Sexual Orientation ? We need to consult and we cannot understand? That is a fair parallel.

Despite the clarity because it was unwelcome for a large proportion of esp pub sector and HR/EDI professionals it has not been accepted but rather met with a campaigning response and not compliance

Everyone should have complied with the ruling and announced women's toilets, changerooms and charities are for women and men must not use them. Its said it is terribly hard to police but employees are required to follow policies and the law, and what the law says

Supposing EA amended, say to add social class. You would not expect HR/EDI to kick up a cloud of denial, to say no one could expect to be able to define? Sexual Orientation ? We need to consult and we cannot understand? That is a fair parallel.

This is such a good point

People following TT directly on X, can you see their latest tweets? I've tried two devices and two browsers and get nothing after the one ending "followed:". I'm still getting new material via the X interface and will keep posting it, but it means for example that I have no way to check for truncation.

From TT:

Is that biological males may not use SSS.
This is an extraordinary situation for the rule of law and what the law says. That links to second thing I want to say by way of intro. Perhaps most significant thing from cross of PM. I was asking her about Fair Care for Trans doc

She said it was 2017 and it reflected times. She accepted that position taken, TWAW and should be in womens' wards. Acknowledged controversy culminating in FWS SC appeal. She said the SC has clarified before but that was not case before, we advised them thus

She can be an 'ummer'

I assume that it's an indicator of strong emotion and or stress.

From TT:

They took an ideological position and it had been followed by RCN because it was almost universally accepted view except from GC people. She went on to say accepted practice under law as described in this doc until SC case clarified. Law as it was understood to be

That was in a nutshell the position. She said everyone had adopted this policy. You might want to marvel that GI had been, how so wide a consensus had emerged without discussion that TWAW and men who ID could use womens' spaces

'followed' is still the last thing I can see, although your view must now have moved on, going by your post at 10:38

I assumed that her brain was going at a million miles an hour and these were very brief pauses to course correct.

Just got home- luckily didn't miss much! I can see the TT tweets and am following Nick Wallis on x

not what I see on X itself - what I'm posting is coming from round the back, via the X developer interface. Somehow TT are still tweeting, but the frontend interface isn't delivering their tweets. The problem is that sometimes their longer tweets get truncated (X interface goes more... and you have to click to see the rest). When things are working properly I try to check for that and add in what's got lost but if I can't see the tweets on the frontend I can't do that. Ah well.

From TT:

Had emerged as a consensus that not merely acceptable but also legally required to allow Trans Id men into womens' spaces. No doubt you know about rape in womens' MH ward. Anyone with awareness should have known, consulted but they did not.

NHS Fife had decided to allow Dr Upton to use SSS and that they should have done this to affect all women staff or union without consultation nor a murmur of protest from union? Did not generate the outrage you might have expected.

I hope Sandie and family are feeling immensely proud to hear what Naomi just said about her tremendous courage 💜

From TT:

NC The fact that GI had been almost universally accepted and adopted by highest levels means that everyone else did. If the world around you does this and goes mad this is hard to reject, and how brave SP was to take a stand. She stood for something SC said reasonable

That anyone standing for SSS spaces against universality of the belief. Because it is a consensus it it seen as how things are and there is no need to lie; it probably didn't need to adopt it but it was all around them, like air they breathe

From Nick Wallis for details.
NC:SSS are for a reason - largely the privacy safety and dignity of W. Yet without a law being passed it was now said that it was legally required for men to access female spaces. YOu may have heard the recent horrifying case of the TiF who was admitted to a male psychiatric ward and within minutes or hours was gang-raped.

That was a direct conseq of people failing to apply their minds to the conseq of GI policies. No one could explain how Dr Upton a TiM was allowed to use the F CR at the hospital where he worked without consultation risk assessment, impact assessment or thought. It's astonishing.

So - the fact that GI had been almost universally accepted and adopted by those who held power in institutions doesn't mean it doesn't count. Just because everybody was acting "irrationally" you don't get a pass. It's poss to have some sympathy it would take bravery to stand up and not go along with it. Which is why Sandie Peggie SP was so brave to stand up - perhaps not realising it at the time - she said no at a time when doing so would have you marked as a bigot.

@fanOfBen wrote
(X interface goes more... and you have to click to see the rest)

Perhaps that's where MN got the idea from, when a post may now begin with a truncated version of the post it's quoting and replying to.

From TT:

You don't need to find it is counterfactual and erroneous because SC judgement is that gender critical view of EA is correct and GI wrong. That takes me to written statement

Not a great deal of factual disagreement; SF did not see claim of discrimintation SP might have, NP denied legal representation

The q is whether this was because of C's protected belief. C says all relevant conduct was based on R's behaviour based on institutional belief in GI

I'm enjoying listening to Naomi just lay it all out. It really highlights the madness of it all.

I'm not on X and used to follow TT on Nitter. Then Nitter was shut down😠
In fact I've just remembered that that's how I used to c&p - off Nitter.

Naomi is saying everything we’ve felt and thought. Just how the hell did the TWAW craziness take such a strong hold of every institution? Without barely a flicker of concern for women.