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

So you would expect that it is proportionate and reasonable for a whole shift change of nurses in a busy hospital to be provided with a single lockable cubicle in order to meet workplace regs whilst someone like Rose in Darlington stands around in their pants, rather than hospital management consider providing a separate facility for the single trans person? “ suitable and sufficient facilities “ is part of the workplace regs. So majority of staff in a hospital = men or women = lots of facilities. Trans people= few in number= fewer faciltiies.

It's evident that being a transactivist desperate to undermine women's rights, results in deliberate misrepresentation of the law, ignoring facts, science and women speaking while dismissing all evidence that fails to comply with an anti women narrative.

Very sad to see.

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?

Despite all your superficial knowledge of the Equality Act courtesy of Google your actual knowledge of the Peggie case is woeful.

BTW I know Dunning-Kruger is strong with you as you think that you know better than the judges of the Supreme Court but you are always going to look foolish arguing the toss on points of law with our resident lawyer.

Accessible are called accessible for exactly the reason they are not just for non ambulant people. There are people that need extra space or privacy for medical reasons. That can include mental health reasons too. It can include people that are unable to use the toilet for their sex. Some trans people already can’t use single sex toilets due to disabilities - in one survey Stonewall said over half of trans people had disabilities. There will be crossover.

What is important, as @MarieDeGournay said, we really should avoid using these designs if our needs are met by standard single sex toilets. And she mentioned the ambulant design that is a useful addition. In a single sex environment the ambulant toilet can have a floor gap to ensure the occupant is safe and hasn’t fallen, grab rails to steady them and a shelf for medical equipment. The door opens outwards and has a grab handle for the outside. Many people aren’t aware of these but they have been around for a long time - look for them at end of rows in washrooms. They take the pressure off the accessible.

And there’s another important design feature that people don’t realise that is life saving. Some people with disabilities have needs that are only met by single sex design. Such as people with epilepsy and other neurological and cardiac conditions need door gaps so if they collapse suddenly (cardiac arrest, stroke, seizure, hypo) they can be seen. This is only permitted in single sex environments.
Single sex design features are a reasonable adjustment for health and safety. In a hospital environment it is essential to have these design features.

“I know it says ‘women’s changing room’ on the door, but that’s actually where we let the hungry leopards exercise freely. The real women’s changing room is the one labelled ‘store cupboard’, around the corner.”

“What?? She went to change in the one labelled ‘women’s changing room’?? Ohhhh….”

This, oh and also the absolute non starter of saying this is for women and TWs who pass. Good luck keeping IW, FW, EddieSu etc out.

A TW of my acquaintance posted on socials after the woman means woman judgement about how they would fight for their 'non passing sisters' as obviously the law doesn't apply to them as they pass so they can ignore it. They don't pass, they are very very obviously male but somehow believe they do (probably because people clock the dress, the makeup, long hair and think oh this bloke wants to be see as a woman so I will call him Miss).

I disagree that a woman is "entitled" to assume that every service/ facility labelled "women" will necessarily exclude trans women. Yes, I disagree with that very seriously.

I agree that a woman should have a place to change at work that protects her personal feelings of privacy, dignity and safety. It seems to me that that can be most obviously managed by the provision of single, lockable cubicles that comply with the conditions in the workplace regs.

Or perhaps, there should be a third facility available in all workplaces clearly labelled "for sex realist birth females" 😜.

And so it has been since time began....

These zealots will argue until they are blue in the face and will not be happy until all women kiss their feet.

I was going to say they wouldn't be happy until all women are confined to their homes, but then where would they get the validation from breaching our boundaries that they crave so pathetically?

.

I disagree that a woman is "entitled" to assume that every service/ facility labelled "women" will necessarily exclude trans women. Yes, I disagree with that very seriously.

How should an employer label the separate changing facility for women that it’s required to provide?

My suggestion is “women’s changing room”, or similar. What’s yours?

BTW I know Dunning-Kruger is strong with you

well played Maam, well played. 😝

Just "Women" or " Men" works fine for us thanks. Disagree all you like.

@Lacksie I agree that a woman should have a place to change at work that protects her personal feelings of privacy, dignity and safety.

The law doesn’t require that. There’s no right for everyone to have their personal feeling of privacy dignity and safety protected in a work changing room. We all have different standards of those things and there’s no way to satisfy everyone’s individual arbitrary demands on those matters.

There is a right to have a changing room free from
members of the opposite sex, however.

I think they would be torn between bigots, TERFs and witches, for the burning of.

I disagree that a woman is "entitled" to assume that every service/ facility labelled "women" will necessarily exclude trans women. Yes, I disagree with that very seriously.

So you want transwomen to be able to surreptitiously use female only single sex spaces.

Do you really understand how that comes across?

Why not label the changing room “women and transwomen” that’s inclusive but it tells women there might be biological men in the changing room?

There is a right to have a changing room free from
members of the opposite sex, however

And this is law to protect women's privacy and dignity and feelings of safety.

And I agree that this should be available.

I don't agree that it follows from this that every service/ facility labelled "women" must exclude trans women in order to be lawful.

A couple of paragraphs other than the much-quoted #61, from the GLP ruling

35 ... Short of this, the Claimants’ submission was that having provided a room for women, the 1992 Workplace Regulations do not prevent the employer adopting a policy that the room could be used by both women and trans women. Thus, the submission goes, regulation 20 requires no more than the provision of facilities and says nothing as to the manner in which those facilities should be used. I do not accept this submission. First, it places form over substance, disregarding the obvious purpose of regulations 20 –21 and 24 The obvious albeit unspoken premise of regulation 20 is the provision of private space for each sex for reasons of conventional decency.

38.....that employer has adopted a policy or practice to allow some biological males to use the female lavatory. An employer would not comply with the obligation under regulation 20 (to make sufficient provision in separate rooms containing lavatories provided for men and women, respectively) if he permitted the room for women to be used by some men and vice versa. That would go against the purpose of the regulation.
my emphasis]

and another
5 One clear consequence of the conclusion reached in For Women Scotland was that if, for example, a service provider provided a service to be used both by women and transsexual women, that service would not be a single-sex service.

Have you ever been in a hospital staff changing room? When patients are being cared for in corridors and we are losing treatment spaces, physio gyms etc at an alarming rate ,you think hospitals should be busy converting their single sex staff facilities that currently fully meet workplace regulations into unisex facilities purely for the purposes of meeting the needs of a few staff who don’t understand women’s sex based protections? ? Rather than management being logical and finding an appropriate, legal and workable option for said trans employees. Should said people even be working in a hospital if they are unable to understand sex based rights and why a woman might be threatened or distressed by the presence of a biological male?

Nope - see GLP v EHRC case. Dealt with this type of situation.

Again like pub or whatever - staff will be using those toilets too. And mixed sex provision for men and women is likely to be indirect discrimination for women. This is a total misunderstanding.

Please reference cases to back up these assertions.

I don't agree that it follows from this that every service/ facility labelled "women" must exclude trans women in order to be lawful.

Your opinion is what you want the law to be & you are utterly wrong. A single sex service labelled "women" ceases to be a single sex service once you allow a trans identifying male in.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/06/sex-peanuts-and-statutory-interpretation/

The law recognizes that including members of the opposite sex in a changing area is an affront to privacy, dignity and safety.

it doesn’t outlaw mixed sex changing facilities but it’s lunacy to think that having mandated a single sex changing facility be made available it would be ok to label a mixed sex facility as single sex by putting “women’s changing room” on the door.

So what way should a workplace changing room be labelled to comply with the 1992 regs, in your opinion?

Yes, these paragraphs mean that an employer cannot count a trans-inclusive women’s changing room as the female-only provision required by the workplace regulations.

They do not prohibit an employer from also providing an additional changing facility for women, including trans women, while excluding other men, provided that arrangement complies with the Equality Act.

The employer must still provide suitable and sufficient changing facilities that allow men and women to change separately where required. That can include individual private changing rooms used by one person at a time.

We’re going around in circles now, so I’ll leave it there

Are people with nut allergies 'entitled' to believe a product labelled 'nut free' shouldn't contain nuts?