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

TT

NC: The fact that your members are not badgering you about single sex spaces does not mean that you should leave them unable to trust the sign on the door. PM: Accept the premise, but, it has not been brought up, we have not proactively sought to deal with. Environment still v unclear.

NC: You agreed this am that survivors of rape and assault might feel particularly upset
PM: yes
NC: You agree that their manageers won't know who those are? And should not ask?
PM: Yes

PM: Accept the premise, but, it has not been brought up, we have not proactively sought to deal with. Environment still v unclear.

No it isnt.

TT

NC [ref missed] this is Sarah D's letter 27/3 to Andrew Thacker at Darlington Trust. You are familiar with this?
PM: Yes
NC: Good, clear legally sound letter?
PM: Agree good and clear - can't speak to the legal bit.

NC: It's a shame it took 5 months from BH's contact, but it's good?
PM: Yes
NC: But when they made it public, SD got very told off?
PM: I don't think so, no trouble re the letter, but not expected that it would be public. No issue with writing the letter.

I hope PM seriously reflects on what she's been doing the last few years when she gets home tonight.

She said she'd prioritise things that were in the news. Did FWS not make the news, Forstater, Stock, Phoenix etc or am I dreaming??

One of my favourite words in this context is PROPORTIONALITY.
Of course trans people have rights the same as anyone else, but what TRAs demand, and what the likes of the RCN have handed up on a sliver platter, mostly unbidden, in the name of inclusivity, is entirely disproportionate to the number of people affected.

Affected positively - the tiny number of transwomen in the population, and the even smaller number who insist on using the women's toilet.
Affected negatively - a large proportion of 50% of the population, even allowing for the 'I don't mind' cohort.

The Law, regulations and proportionality -

The Law as it actually is - ask a lawyer if you're not sure😒.
Other regulations like Workplace Regs 92.
Proportionality. common sense and balance.

If they genuinely think the 'environment is unclear', isn't it their job to ensure that it is clear?

"Well tube drivers, we know that you want a pay rise, but the environment is unclear, and your employers have rights too, so really it's a job to know what to do!"

Andrew Thacker.

Seems a lifetime ago now!

So that was 20 minutes in barrister time then Naomi, not time by the clock.

TT

NC p1019
NC: Do you know this doc?
PM: screenshots of our website?
NC: specifically of searches of your website. [explains this in detail]

NC: So these are searches without any time restrictions. if you search for "LGBTQ" you get 60 results, 'transgender' about 170. For 'gender-critical' - two results.

Maybe she only watches Newsround? (Does that still exist?)

I would consider handing her a stiff gin, oh no I wouldn’t as I might be tempted to chuck it in her face.

TT

NC: This is a crude measure, but still telling. RCN is much more interested in trans people than in ppl who dissent from G-ideology?
PM: we are just as interested in both groups of people. Most of the focus re LGBTQ / transgender is about nursing / caring for them.

PM: I agree it's disappointing only 2 re gender critical

And she can Fuck off if she thinks she's getting near the Tunnock's.

Well that's certainly disproportionate to the numbers of staff.

NC: These are tweets from Ellie Mulreany. Threats to punch, stab, kick etc - this is very violent and menacing to ppl that dissent from G-ideology?
PM: Yes very unpleasant.
NC: And there's a lot of that sort of material out there?
PM: Don't follow closely but yes.
NC: So it's not surprising is it that ppl don't come forward with concerns about G-ideology is it?
PM: I can't say why, but it's true that ppl aren't coming forward.

Could she maybe investigate whether the violent threats are connected to people not coming forward?

I find 'I don't know' almost a relief, because it shows her to be monstrously incompetent at best. Every time I hear it, I think 'But you should' and it must be occurring to everybody else as well.

John Craven wouldn't have stood for this bollocks.

The tunnocks would run away

Time to get this one out again.

Or even the SP case, which is the reason she's sat where she is...

TT

NC: [ref] this is an update 2021 about Forstater v CGD EAT case. You have said you're as interested in G-C ppl as trans ppl. So we'd expect an RCN article about how Forstater is a powerful tool for protected G-C members?
PM: yes

NC: And it was a seismic judgement - ppl had been too afraid to express any G_C view at all, Forstater changed that?
PM: Yes agree, changed landscape.

NC: It's something you'd expect all RCN officials to be v aware of, bcs they might have members needing help in this?
PM: Agree
NC: Wd be shocking if any officials didn't understand Forstater?
PM: Yes, but I don't think we did any specific training.

They didn't do any training on Forstater? She admits it.

Utterly negligent of the ACTUAL law.

[This is a long 20 minutes Naomi! I need a cuppa]

@murasaki Ignorance of the law as a defence was discussed in details on one of these threads. My, probably wrong, summary is that while not exactly a defence it can sometimes be a mitigation when even lower courts have been wrong.

.