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

Whatever the outcome, the RCN have demonstrated that didn't give a single moment's thought for their female members when becoming cheerleaders for TWAW.

I'm hope other unions are starting to think about the real life consequences of this misogynistic stance.

I'm not ignoring your point in engaging with it.

You seem to be conflating several things. The first is whether there can be a meaningful definition of being a trans woman in law/ policy, based on gender identity- well there already is! The protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This doesn't depend on on gender presentation/ transition- the law is clear on that, and contrary to your assertions legislators and courts have not found this to be practically impossible to identify and implement.

Secondly, you make the claim that if we define gender reassignment in this way in law- there can be no legal basis for distinguishing between trans people on the basis of presentation/ transition for the purposes of access to facilities for men and women . But why? As we have been discussing The high court has acknowledged the possibility that a service labelled/ advertised for "women" could lawfully include trans women but exclude men, depending on the circumstances. The service cannot rely on exemptions from discrimination on the grounds of "sex", however it will not necessarily discriminate against men if there is an alternative , no less favourable , service available. So the service could choose to allow transitioned/ passing trans women but not those who are not passing/ transitioned , on exactly the same basis- this wouldn't be discrimination against non transitioned trans women, if it is simply different "but no less favourable" treatment.

Third, you suggest that a practice of treating people differently based on gender presentation/ transition is impractical and meaningless. But, again, why? The EA, SC and EHRC guidance are all clear that inclusion/ exclusion based on gender presentation/ transition is possible and relevant to access to services, by allowing for different treatment of birth sex women depending on their gender presentation / transition. The SC also recognises that gender transition of trans women may have implications for how comfortable women are with their presence in women's services and men in men's. There is no basis for saying it's harder to police access in this way than on the grounds of birth sex. Admittedly both do present their ethical and practical challenges. But a rule based on gender presentation/ transition is not obviously more difficult than a rule based on birth sex. There are birth sex males who have undergone medical transition , obtained a GRC and legally changed their birth certificates. How are you going to ethically and accurately identify them for the purposes of exclusion from female services. on the other hand you can identify a male who hasn't changed their gender presentation or medically transitioned just by looking at them.

Was it when she didn’t have witnesses on standby even though they weren’t due on until the next week (Bethany and Jennifer)?

For the benefit of @Lacksie and anyone else who is confused, let me set out the current law regarding changing rooms.

Changing rooms at work are governed by the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. If an employer is required to provide changing rooms, they must provide separate facilities for men and women, or a separate room lockable from the inside. There are now a number of precedents that make it clear these regulations must be interpreted as referring to biological sex - a position which is wholly unsurprising given that the Supreme Court in FWS said that single sex services such as changing rooms require a biological interpretation of sex. Any employer who allows a biological male to use the female changing room is therefore committing a criminal offence regardless of how the person in question presents and whether they are in possession of a GRC. The same would apply to allowing a biological female to use the male changing room.

Changing rooms elsewhere, e.g. at sports facilities, are not required to be single sex, although there are various standards and guidelines recommending separate male and female provision alongside inclusive options. If a service provider puts a "women" sign on a changing room but then permits its use by trans identifying males, that changing room is unisex for the purposes of the Equality Act and hence is not entitled to claim the exemptions for single sex services set out in the Equality Act. So, whilst a service provider could allow trans identifying males into the female changing room, by doing so they may find it harder to defend their position if a claim is made against them.

Given the above, it is clear that the ET judgment in Peggie vs NHS Fife is wrong. The tribunal misdirected itself when it decided not to consider the Workplace Regulations on the grounds that they are criminal law. It is clearly relevant to an employee's claim if their employer has broken criminal law or allowed other employees to do so. Failure to consider the Regulations allowed the tribunal to conclude that NHS Fife had discretion to allow trans identifying males to use the women's changing room. In reality, Fife had no such discretion. They broke the law by allowing Upton to use the women's changing room. The decisions being appealed all flow from this incorrect understanding of the law by the tribunal. Unless the higher courts decide to reverse previous precedents, I expect that the ET's judgment will be overturned.

Haven't followed the hearings closely so there may have been other instances, but yes, the judge did seem annoyed that two of NC's witnesses were not available to appear on Friday when the hearing was running a day ahead of schedule.

Witnesses are expected to be available for the entire duration of their "warned period" and should be able to attend on 24 hours notice unless the court has explicitly ordered a "not before" time slot. This should have been made clear to them. In my view, NC slipped up here. It should have been obvious by Wednesday evening that they were well ahead of schedule, so she should have told the witnesses no later than Thursday morning that they needed to be available on Friday. I am, therefore, not surprised the judge was annoyed.

But The addition of workplace regs in this (employer) context doesn't mean that it's illegal to for DU to be allowed in the women's changer, they just provide that there must be a separate facility that is designated for (birth) female employees only (or lockable cubicles). Didn't the tribunal acknowledge that this should have been available to SP and wasn't that the one ground they found in her favour, that the employer delayed in dealing with this?

The tiff between NC and judge straddled two threads.

Boiledbeetle · 29/09/2026 10:31
NC has finally managed to annoy the judge

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64?reply=155038281&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Rose posted soon after:

RoseInAPot · 29/09/2026 10:31
From Nick re Fred Wallace as this is mind-blowing:
"NC I think I am write there is a series of events put on by RCN for local activists called activist academy
SF yes
NC what is it
SF in ref to what
NC you said we have an AA - what is it
SF my understanding of it - we have one in England where a series of academies about training reps and keeping them up to date in support and representation - 3 types - learning, stewards and health and safety reps
NC and they get together and do training
SF I would have thought so I have not been involved in this
NC can you go to the smallest supplementary bundle - p51 - a tweet from a Freda Wallace
SF think it's a BlueSky post
SF we don't call them tweets any more
NC let's call it a post. Its from someone called Freda Wallace - this is from an AA event at the London HQ
SF I don't know who FW is - I know we hired that space out - anyone can hire rooms at HQ - not sure it's an RCN event organised by
NC looks like FW is training nurses about discrimination
SF not sure it's an RCN event
SF people can hire that space and use it freely
NC any reason why you are keen to intro the idea this is nothing to do with RCN SF don't believe FW is a member of staff
NC but it is
known he is a member.
NC and if you look at the subsequent pics - he's dressed quite demurely at the event, but in the other pics he is dressed less demurely, isn't he
SF yes
NC if what p51 implies is true - that FW has been invited to speak at RCN events about discrimination...
... then in the light of the pics and posts on pp41 - 50 that is a serious reputational risk for the RCN isn't it.
SF RCN can't police peoples SM
NC "looking at those posts do you agree he is a thoroughly unpleasant and menacing ind who RCN should not be willing to associated with publicly"
SF if they are a member and I don't know if they are I believe there's a code of conduct they have to adhere to
NC not saying this is a matter for you to implement - but surely someone like FW should be expelled before their feet touch the ground the moment these pics come to
their attn.
DH don't answer that q.
Judge this has been put to SF and he's said this is not his area to judge
NC in the past the RCN has notoriously has a serious misogyny problem and these posts suggest they haven't dealt with it"

Then on to next thread.

Boiledbeetle · 29/09/2026 10:33
NC currently having robust discussion with the judge.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583663-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-65?reply=155038324&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

They'll be more tweets about around this time if someone fancies looking.

The EA, SC and EHRC guidance are all clear that inclusion/ exclusion based on gender presentation/ transition is possible and relevant to access to services, by allowing for different treatment of birth sex women depending on their gender presentation / transition.

Specifically which clause or clauses of the EA2010 do you claim says or say that inclusion based on “gender presentation/transition” is possible and relevant to access to services?

Please substantiate this claim you’re making, carefully. I think this is a huge misunderstanding of yours.

No, that is not what the tribunal said at all. And it does mean it is illegal for Upton to be allowed in the women's changing room.

NHS Fife could have provided a unisex changing room (or gender neutral if you prefer) in addition to the men's and women's facilities. They could have relabelled the women's changing room to make it unisex and provided women's facilities elsewhere. However, they did not do either of these things. They allowed him into the women's changing room. By doing so, they were in breach of the law as there was now no women's changing room.

If a workplace changing room is labelled "women's", it must be for biological women.

(edited for clarity)

It's quite a nice October day and I am going out to post a (non-nebulous) support postcard to Jennifer Melle. Brazenly quoting my own post to bump the CC address in case anyone else would like to join in!

Nurse Jennifer Melle
C/O Christian Concern
70 Wimpole Street
London
W1G 8AX

And it does mean it is illegal for Upton to be allowed in the women's changing room.

I disagree. The changer can be for women and trans women, only, and labelled for women, as long as there is another no less favourable service for men. There must also be a facility for birth females, or single lockable cubicles available (which is specifically required in this context because it's a workplace, but wouldn't necessarily apply in lots of other contexts- eg pub toilets for customers).

Well you are wrong. Dream on.

If the label on the door says it is the women's changing room, it must be for biological women. You are, in any case, ignoring the fundamental point that NHS Fife DID NOT provide a separate facility for biological women. Their decision to allow Upton into the women's changing room meant they had two changing rooms, one for men and a unisex one. They did not have a women's changing room which they are required to have by law. However you twist it, the reality is that they were in breach of the law from the moment they allowed Upton to use the women's changing room.

Nope.

Once a birth male always a birth male. All the surgery and dresses and lipstick in the world. you are still a birth male. Use male facilities and keep out of mine.

I’m not normally big on labels, but it drives a coach and horses through the intentions of the WR if the women’s changing room they mandate is allowed to be not, actually, the one labelled “women’s changing room” - because some men are allowed in that one.

Women have the right not only to a single sex changing room but for it to be the one labelled “women’s changing room”.

As this is an ET all SP has to show is that on the balance of probability did RCN discriminate against her.

In my opinion NC demonstrated on the balance of probability that RCN as an institution believed in GII and actively supported it to the point they produced guidance stating members should affirm children patients who identify as Eunuch’s. Had they not been unconsciously indoctrinated when NC asked the RCN employees and managers the question they would have thought about it without a GIL filter and said no that is not right.

For me there is also an element of sex discrimination as I keep coming back to SF trying to persuade SP to move to a different role so she could return to work.

SF was asked why wasn’t DrU moved and SF responded (according to NW tweets)

“SF wouldn't say that more to do with a subconscious idea that I don't agree with that nurses are more replaceable than doctors”

SF was saying, what the RCN and most of us already know, that the NHS will prioritise the wants of a Doctor over the needs of a nurse. DrUs wants were prioritised over SPs needs.

According to RCNs own statistics https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/Press-Releases/new-analysis-more-evidence-nursing-is-undervalued-for-being-female-dominated-rcn-leader-says

87.9% of nurses and health workers are female vs 47.8% of doctors and 40.9% of consultants are female. Prioritising Drs wants over nurses (who are predominantly female) needs is potentially sex discrimination.

TU reps have to understand how to get the best for their members and SF knew from past experience the NHS would sacrifice Sandie as a nurse and prioritise DrU as a doctor irrespective of the issue between them.

I think this shows SF, and the RCN, were taking a pragmatic stance but it wasn’t supporting SP to exercise her legal right to a SSS.

Not under the 1992 Workplace Regulations which are what determine staff changing rooms. You keep trying to conflate the Equality Act 2010 which deals with services to the public and the Regulations which cover workplaces and which clearly mandate male and female single-sex facilities for employees. Incidentally, unless you're a lawyer I wouldn't try to challenge what prh47bridge says. 😉

If the label on the door says it is the women's changing room, it must be for biological women

tyats not what the law says, and the high court specifically contemplated the lawfulness of the opposite.

on your second point I agree that a separate facility for birth females, or a lockable private cubicle should have been available, because of the workplace rega and this was a workplace. Were there no private cubicles that met the standard?

Wrong again. More incorrect waffle.

How can you seriously suggest that it’s ok for the legally mandated women’s changing room to NOT be the one labelled “women’s changing room”?

Part of the provision of a women’s changing room is for everyone to know where it is, for which a prerequisite is to label it accurately. If an employer hides a facility by mislabeling it, they haven’t provided it.

A new female employee, on her first day, passing through a door that says “women only” is fully entitled to find only women there. Regardless of whether there’s another secret changing room.

Wrong.

This is like a real time presentation of Sandie's problems, and frustration, in trying to get her employer and union representatives to understand the problem, do their jobs and bloody help her.

How she didn't have a complete breakdown is beyond me.

So what exactly would they call this changing room for “birth females” only? So what you are suggesting is a changing room for “birth females”, a mixed sex changing room and a changing room for “birth males”. Ok. So TIM use the unisex one or the male and TIF use the female one or the unisex one. So third spaces.

Here’s a thought experiment to show the idiocy of this labelling argument.

An employer provided two changing rooms, but doesn’t label either. One they say is for men, and one is for women. But they refuse to say which is which. “We have provided separate changing facilities for men and women women as required by law”, they say. “It’s not required that we identify them to you, or distinguish which one is which, only that we provide them.”

Have they complied with the law?