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

yes

But that's not the law though

I would of thought that the Northumbria police case may be relevant as the judge held that clothing an agency in pride Thalia was a political act

this case is obvs different as not a public body but the act was deemed political

From TT:

for GI, disappointment with FWS decision, and an explicit statement that GC people were not welcome on Northern Pride march. Chief constable made explicit statements of support for Northern Pride. Also some lack of candour in pleadings about own participation. The courts

findings on uncontested evidence; the active attendance of officers in uniform in the parade associated them with other participants, chanting and demonstrating against GC. And also considered the EAT Forstater decision did not find that GC beliefs were discriminatory against

from nick

[spending some time on the case brought against Northumberland police attending Northern Pride - case is called Smith - says it's not possible to read it across to this case]

I went to mow the lawn. I know, I'm weak

Just trying to catch up now. WTF was that deletion about? Everything in the post was what was covered in the tribunal, I think

From TT:

trans people, thus GI beliefs are not automatically discriminatory against GC people. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Now on to the culture assertions. 3 propositions from a relevant case 1) ET should be more willing to ignore irrelevant evidence 2) and take more

notice of how individuals actually behave. and 3) culture is a vague term and it is fanciful to suggest that the ET will be assisted by considering the actions of other people at RCN in other departments in some case years ago.

From TT:

If such a culture or ideology were established, Cs would need to produce evidence that the culture influenced the behaviour of the invididuals.
And on time bar - I set out some considerations based on Barclay in my submissions.

Now, how does the law apply to the evidence. Conversation took place on 5 Jan, and note was logged by SF on 8 Jan at 9:20 am. My suggestion is that this claim is out of time. You allowed an amendment, that was in November, and it is clearly out of time.

It must be a single act, perhaps one of omission but has continuing consequences. No extension of time has been sought. The later instances of conduct that are complained of are from other individuals. The only instance of SF being complained of was in early Jan 2024.

GI beliefs I don't think have been found to be WORIADS?

Seriously - as a union if you are one sided in your support you are potentially discriminating against a significant number of your members. For example TUs historically supported male employees being paid more than female employees for doing work of equal value - Dagenham workers.

From TT:

If you're not satisfied that claim is out of time and decide to consider, some comments on the merits. The comments made by SF are not possible of being viewed as a detriment. The convo between C and SF, C had been suspended, first time SF had encountered C,

C did not advise of earlier encounters. C did not contest DU's account and accepted that she had said words comparing DU to Isla Bryson. SF had then offered a view to C that that exchange was the basis of the discrim and that the issue of biological sex was less clear based on

Naomi’s position seemed to be that it isn’t as harmless as wanting to be a train/princess/ any other fantasy a child might decide to be though - it’s a castrated boy. She was highlighting that this should ring alarm bells and trigger a safeguarding referral. How would a child even be aware of this unless they have been exposed by an adult to the concept.

From TT:

Court of Session. Also clear that C did not express any GC belief. She only became aware of GC or SR beliefs when discussing with Sex Matters. Nothing in SF notes that C expressed a GC belief. C seems to say that SF should have understood her GC beleif

and that she wanted to raise proceedings against employer. People tend to know what they believe, and union officers should not make assumptions, C did not convey those matters to him. Furthermore it is far from obvious that C wanted to raise a claim for harassment

True, but something can be 100% legal and give out a very clear discriminatory message.

It is not what my lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reasonableness and justice tell me I ought to do.

FFS SP didn’t want a man in the women’s changing room. Just because she didn’t say the magic words Gender Critical doesn’t mean that is what she was expressing.

It partly depends on the age of the aspirant eunuch 'child'. If an older but under the age of 18 teenager it's disturbing. If an 11 year-old, their having heard of eunuchs is seriously alarming.

From TT:

against DU, given DU had the permission of senior consultant. He could not have deduced that SP wanted to raise proceedings from the conversation. There was no sense of urgency either; disciplinary proceedings are seen as continuation of acts. An employer can refuse a

employee being accompanied by a solicitor. In any event, a claim about DU conduct would have been in time if it had been raised in March 2023. C contacts NH in January 2024, NH messages SM, then MG begins to act for SP by early February. The case is described as being

(fairly sure this isn't true - Sandie did not mention Isla bryson.
She did compare Upton being in the changing room as like other men who Id as women- which is true, none of us know which men are rapists)

.
(from Nick Wallis)
'did not contest DU's account and accepted that she had said words comparing DU to Isla Bryson'

I'm wondering whether this is to create of defence of uselessness, that if the RCN had no clue that there might be discrimination, how could they have carried out their own discrimination against SP.

It sort of feels that while ignorance of the law is no defence, sometimes it can sort of work that way.

From TT:

of strategic significance. In Feb 2024, MG advised SP that an ET claim would be raised so. No request from C or MG for legal support.

Any reasonable reader of the correspondence would conclude that the C or counsel asked for support from RCN. C instructed counsel 5 days after SM contact, and MG was clearly acting on her behalf and instructing SF in March 2024. This was the time to have asked RCN

and the poster some way above is correct (again from memory ). The 1st FWS court case confirmed men who ID as women with no GRC remain men for all purposes, didn't consider the rest.
And Upton had no GRC.

But have a look at this: https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2102712036199219574

It could be unlawfully discriminatory to not know there was unlawful discrimination going on when you should have known. Why didn't you know? Is it because your own discriminatory attitude blinded you?

We assign moral approbation to unlawful discrimination. But the converse is not true (i.e. the proposition that if it's not 'wrong', it can't be discriminatory, is false.) Behaviour which when isolated doesn't appear to deserve condemnation can still be unlawful discrimination.

They may look fluffy and cuddly, but their propensity to bite first and ask questions later is undisputed. I still have the scars from DD's hamster.

From TT:

to provide legal support. Why not? C and those advising her were perfectly content with the legal advice she was getting. She had found her tribe. It was a case of strategic importance to at least one campaigning organisation. In my submission this head of claim falls at the

first hurdle. Even if found to be a detriment, we need to consider SF's motivations. There is a suggestion from MLF that SF was motivated by an institutional belief in GI. This submission has a number of difficulties. The particular culture is undefined, and it is not enough