Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #67

[nauticant]

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.

A second Employment Tribunal, Sandie Peggie vs Royal College of Nursing, has just been heard. The hearing started on Wednesday 23 September 2026 and ended on Thursday 1 October 2026. It is possible that a decision will be handed down before Christmas of this year.

Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against three senior managers who were witnesses in the first 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 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

Thread 66: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584074-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-66 30 September 2026 to 1 October 2026

no comment

How Sandie Peggie union denied being ‘steeped in gender ideology’

https://www.thetimes.com/article/563b139e-cf5d-4a0d-a994-a3950feca446?shareToken=8187a8a15cabce0421b1d44640254d2e

That's not what SP has to prove. She has to prove that the RCN decision makers were prejudiced against her protected characteristic and that they failed to support her in a way that might possibly have been caused by that prejudice. From then on, it's up to the union to prove that there's an alternative non-discriminatory explanation.

I think it's pretty clear that SF was prejudiced against SP. He modified her words when taking notes because he thought she was a bigot, and it never even occured to him that she might be the victim in the situation - which was of course confirmed to be the case by the previous tribunal.

I think it's also clear that the RCN failed to support her: most obviously by not noticing that she had arguable claims for sexual harassment and for violation of working regs despite her giving them all the relevant facts. This should be exactly what unions are for - figuring out what protections and remedies are available to you when something bad is happening to you at work.

RCN's defence would seem to be that they're equally useless to all their members. I guess we'll see how that flies.

An a more neutral analogy for the level of bias in the RCN (yes all analogies are flawed)

SP objects to somebody cooking animal products in a vegan kitchen

RCN flies a meat-lovers pizza flag, has RCN products with meat pictures on them, has hundreds of meat recipes but only 2 vegan recipes on its website. Fails to support SP and claims not to be biased against vegans.

I agree. There's a big building in London (a bank) that displays the LGBT+ colours during Pride month. It also displays the poppy in November, and celebrates International Women's Day and Black History Month, and possibly other dates that I can't remember. That's very different from RCN.

There are many problems with your position. One of the most obvious, and one you avoid is the question of who a transgender person is. There is a definition of the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ in the Equality Act but this doesn’t particularly help in relation to policy, for reasons some of your previous answers already highlight.

You’ve acknowledged that while some transwomen pass, others don’t (how many of each is subject to disagreement, but is ultimately irrelevant) and those that don’t may make women uncomfortable. You have suggested that transwomen may feel more comfortable in a women’s space because of their gender identity, indicating you believe that the definition of a transwoman is someone with a ‘female gender identity’. You’ve acknowledged that some transwomen may be out, some won’t.

So your replies build a picture of what ‘transwoman’ may mean (or at least who you consider to be a transwoman). A male person with a female gender identity, some who pass, some who don’t, some out, some not.

Back to policy and law. These do not and cannot generally operate on an individual level. They operate by using categories. The problem with your position is if we say it is possible or desirable to have a service or a space for women and transwomen then it is for all women and transwomen. It doesn’t matter whether you believe some won’t be comfortable using the space or some wouldn’t want to because it would ‘out’ them, that is an opinion. The fact would be any transwoman (male person with a female gender identity) would be entitled to use them passing or not, out or not, ‘wearing female clothes’ (another of your identifiers) or not. We hear a lot about how hard it apparently is to police spaces on the basis of sex, it is impossible to police them on the basis of ‘gender identity’, which is the reality of your position.

I love FWR 🥰

Amongst the drama of the c&p and observer remarks, patient and evidence-based rebuttals of the ploppers’ diversionary tactics, sit nuggets of fascinating information about completely unrelated topics. And sometimes some lovely recipes

This post made me smile this morning and I wanted to acknowledge it and you all.

As you were

Now, trying to access that thread says that you asked for it to be deleted. That seems ... jarring. What's going on?

Just echoing this. It's rather disrespectful to all the people who contributed to that thread to remove it.

@BlueLegume What's going on?

Seconded, @Cantunseeit 👍

Personal reasons. Feel free to start the thread or similar again. That thread was started to prevent this thread being derailed.

What factual evidence has been presented that suggests RCN discriminated against SP for her protected belief, as apposed to just didn't hold the same belief themselves?

Are you claiming that the RCN, as an organisation, holds a 'belief'? Or are you suggesting that the individuals who were making decisions all hold the same religious-style belief?

Shouldn't they be impartial? If it's the individuals who hold the belief, they should put this to one side when at work for a secular organisation. If the organisation itself has a religious element, this should be declared.

Edited for typos.

RCN decision makers were prejudiced against her protected characteristic

She doesn't have a protected characteristic , she has a protected belief. Surely being "prejudiced against her belief" cant just be not agreeing with it? Is a Christian org automatically discriminating / prejudiced against atheists?? It just can't be the case, it has to be more .

'Religion or belief' is a protected characteristic.

But she does. She has the protected characteristic of sex. And the RCN discriminated against her by not defending her right to a single sex changing room, instead, refusing to support her as they believed that DU as a male should be in that room also.

ok but the point still remains. Being prejudiced about her belief has to amount to something more than not agreeing with it, or holding a different incompatible belief / value.

Again, is a Christian org automatically prejudiced against an atheist employee? Obviously not.

They are if they demand that the atheist says 6 Hail Marys every day and has to attend compulsory bible study or they will not be supported.

If an avowedly Christian union declined to support an atheist member in circumstances where they would have supported him or her if he or she expressed Christian beliefs, yes, they would be discriminating against that person.

Sure. So where is the evidence the RCN demanded SP recite TWAW 6 times everyday?

Yes but there would have to be facts supporting that beyond "this culture of this organisation is deeply seeped in Christian values"

"She doesn't have a protected characteristic , she has a protected belief."

"'Religion or belief' is a protected characteristic."

"ok but ..."

Arguing quite so much when one doesn't understand the absolute basics seems a bit pointless.

So why in your opinion did they not support her? She paid her membership subs, she was entitled to representation. It’s up to them to explain it. I do hope they have a good reason….

So do you disagree that there needs to be something more than just facts showing the organisation has a different belief/ value?

If there is evidence that an organjsatjkn has a deeply Christian culture, do you think that's enough to establish a factual basis for discrimination?

If so, make the case.

Lacksie this is a terribly basic mistake. Of course she has protected characteristics. We all do. In her case, the two that were engaged were belief and sex.

@nauticant Could I suggest that you ask MN to rename this thread The Lacskie and Opponents Infinite Standoff, and then start thread #67A for continuing non-Lacksie-related discussion

There doesn't seem to be much factual basis for that, and in any case "adverse" treatment isn't enough. There has to be adverse treatment + a set of facts from which a court could properly infer discrimination . That set of facts has to be more than: "the org itself has a different set of values/ beliefs".

It's going to be a very, very long day indeed (and poor nauticant is going to be contemplating another thread at this rate) if the relentless arguing continues at the same pace.

I came back to the thread this morning and almost wept in frustration at seeing you-know-who at it bright and early since the small hours.