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

No I think they are an lgbt friendly organisation and they are absolutely legally allowed to be!

When he called her conscientious, I think he must have meant conscious...

Admitting they did pick a side is somewhere they didn't want to go as it introduces the possibility they may have shown bias in the way they treated SP.

From TT:

His evidence on this should be preferred to the C. He was cross examined on matters of employment law, cross examined on tweets of Freda Wallace, it was an attempt to place on SF complex explanations of simple conversations with SP.

GT also gave impressive evidence. She was also x-examined on legal matters, and FWS was identified as being 3 things; representation of women on boards, the public boards exception of pc had the same meaning of EA, and the expanded definition of woman conflicted with the EA

I agree but here they've been pretending to be equal in thir views, which they are not.

I would have thought that yes absolutely they should be either ' neutral or both-sided on the matter'!

Preferably, given their area of interest, they should just stick with the science, which is that human sex is binary and immutable, and leave ideologies at the door when they come in to RCN HQ to support medical staff.

But if they insist, unwisely in my opinion and probably in the opinion of Mr. Justice Linden, on getting involved in 'the matter' at all, yes they should display support for both sides. Preferably none, but certainly not just one.

Bugger on to PM and I've got to go out.

Laterz.

PM an impressive witness?? This bloke must be living in an alternate reality...

Has impressive been given another definition that I missed somehow? Like woman? I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

He obviously hasn't seen what Twitter thinks of her...

From TT:

and was outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. FWS was clearly obiter, FWS 2 was (complex legal term). ST rejected any assertion that RCN had adopted GI, her evidence clearly showed that she was a senior officer doing her best for a member.

ST appears to share C's belief and refuted that there was any climate of fear or adoption of GI>
JM was also an impressive witness, her evidence on judgment being complex was rational, she explained the approach in England, development of policy etc. She also explained that

T-friendly, undoubtedly, but sticking everybody together in one acronym isn't very LGB friendly at all.
Different people, different issues.

The pre SC FWS appeal was in November 2023 and confirmed individuals without a GRC retain their biological sex at birth

In fairness, he has to say that, it's his job.

From TT:

the RCN had sought input with open invitations to sessions on SC plus one for trans staff and one for GC members. Her own experience is that TRAs in RCN were not frightening.

Now on to heads of claims; 1) failing to advise during early Jan convo that she might have a claim against Fife & DU, 2) refusing her request for advice, and 3) refusing to copy all RCN Fife employees on letter. On to that 3rd head of claim,

I forget now, did the judge say that NC would have an opportunity to respond to these submissions by DH?

yes

I wouldn't like NC correcting my homework

A beast, but a just beast

edit this was resonse to quote of how DH described JM in very personal terms

I recall he said emotional and hyperbolic in reference to her responses to particular lines of questioning.

It stuck in my mind because it reminded me I wanted to ask Christian Concern if postcards of support could be sent to their office for Jennifer, so I did that, thanks to his fairly brutal prompt. I will report back on any response.

It may be that JM's testimony isn't found helpful by the tribual, but she demonstrated amply to me the depth of distress she is still suffering because of the interaction with her union, and I hope she knows how powerfully she has affected many of us, and motivated us to keep going with the fight. If she couldn't engage with RCN processes, RCN needs to take responsibility for improving the handling and the broad environment that makes it possible or not for a very distressed member to engage.

From TT:

it was focused on a short period, it was focused on the failure to copy and paste SP email (3) points and finally not to copy to all RCN members.

Considering the law; dir discrim and detriments, not defined but has been taken to mean different and less favourable treatment by union. Where such is because of PC, it is dir discrim. There needs to be a comparator, the causal connection needs to be more than trivial,

and it matters not that the discriminator is well intentioned, if it is because of the PC. Now onto burden of proof, the C needs to make a prima facie case that an unlawful act was committed, Not the the whole picture, because R can provide facts that this was not the case.

Interesting how he was so callous towards JM. Who had done nothing wrong. She was the one on which a physical attack was attempted, she was shrieked at, and racially abused. A woman who probably takes great pride in her professionalism. Then she was the one suspended, whilst being the main earner in her household with children to support. I’d probably have PTSD, and would never really understand how this bs grew legs, and then arms to try to smother everyone with.

And all these nobs, and big nobs, pulling in a cushty wage from the nurses (who are majority female), were just following this highly anti scientific balderdash, which breaches the women’s safety, privacy and dignity. And carry on a great pretence they are just being all ‘inclusive’.

Does Naomi get a chance to respond to any of these points?

LGBTQIA+

From TT:

Common sense on the part of the tribunal, the first step must be to identify the precise inference. Bare facts that indicate the possibility of discrimination are not enough. Where the tribunal is in a position to make positive findings, it is not as relevant.

A large part of the C claim is that RCN has an institutional gender belief, has taken the court to the case of Smith, participation of police in Pride. Many differences, police have a statutory duty to objectivity, a key factor. Northern Pride itself proclaimed clear support