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

ᵗⁱⁿʸ ᵗᵉˣᵗ ⁱˢ ᶠᵘⁿ

⠠⠁ ⠺⠕⠍⠁⠝ ⠊⠎ ⠁⠝ ⠁⠙⠥⠇⠞ ⠋⠑⠍⠁⠇⠑ ⠓⠥⠍⠁⠝

Braille

I'm so glad to meet another suffering from 70s dessicated coconut trauma. What was it that we were made to eat that contained coconut in such a hideous form? Dry and chewy and vile.

I have recently suffered additional trauma from drinking rancid coconut juice. I necked it straight from the coconut. It tasted wrong, and then when I opened the nut fully it was full of green mould. Damn you Lidl.

When I googled to see what might happen, the results were full of a Danish man who died 24 hours after drinking rancid coconut water. I was relieved to wake up the next day. (I did have slightly achey elbows but I'm not 100% the cioconut water could be blamed.)

ᑊᐩ'ᔆ ᐢᐤᐩ ᒃᑊᕐ ᒃᐡᐩ ᑊᐩ ᑊᔆ ᑦᒻᕪᘁᕪᔇ!

Fifteens though. Food of the gods and covered in desiccated coconut.

But if there were alternative facilities for birth sex females, or private lockable rooms where they could change (as per SP case) , then there is nothing to suggest that would be incompatible with the law as it is.

As I posted earlier despite some superficial knowledge of the Equality Act your actual knowledge of the Peggie case is woeful. There were no separate lockable rooms available. There was a lockable cubicle within the female changing room which is of course not a separate lockable room.

There was a lockable cubicle within the female changing room

There were lavatory cubicles, but IIRC no changing cubicle.

I think the Ronseal analogy applies here. All snacks and all changing rooms should have clear labelling. Do what it says on the tin. If something is labelled as containing chocolate but also contains dessicated coconut, I'm not going to be able to eat it. If a changing room is labelled for women but also contains men, then I'm not going to be able to use it.

Neither the ladies nor the nut free snack should contain nuts.

In your view men who say they are women can go into women’s toilets and changing rooms outside work environment but not inside a work environment. Forgetting building legislation and other regulations for a minute,

Who is permitted in these women’s toilets outside of work? Is it all or none or a selection?
men who say they are men
men who say they are transwomen
men who are transwomen

All of these groups of men have been sent to prison for incidents in non work toilets. The difference being the men in the incidents in women’s toilets who were emboldened enough to say they were women gave it as a reason to be there.

Good men stay out.

When the bad men can’t stay out they are given the encouragement of a SHPO for womens and unisex toilets.

If you are going to look at changing the EA, you need to have evidence that it won’t detriment to human rights.

A lot is made of Article 8. Look what the EHRC say about this.
This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

• protect national security
• protect public safety
• protect the economy
• protect health or morals
• prevent disorder or crime, or
• protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

I can argue all these points for having single sex toilets - even national security! I have a few interesting stories on that too.

It is lawful, necessary and proportionate, to have single sex toilets as the main provision outside work too. It’s also proportionate to have young children to go into the toilet of the sex of their parent and male cleaners to work in female toilets.

Yes, Kellogg's had it right, too. "What's on the box is in the box".

Ahh how hygienic changing in a literal toilet.

Who is permitted in these women’s toilets outside of work?

Good luck getting an answer.

Exactly.

Is a bigot someone who hangs on to their view of things, and in spite of all the overwhelming evidence presented to the contrary insists only their view is correct?

Yes. I think another way of referring to them Is GI or TRA

Fab. We're back to the eunuchs!

I had to google Fifteens, and I see they are a Northern Ireland home-baked product. That gives them a fighting chance of being nice despite the dessicated coconut -- or at least so I thought, until I saw that the recipe also includes <shudder> glace cherries.
Those revolting things with their gelatinous sheen were another thing that repelled me as a child. Like pale, sugared blood clots.

ETA: I've just spotted that my glace cherry post is straight after a eunuch post, which makes me think of those pale sugared blood clots in pairs 😉

I however like both desiccated coconut and glacé cherries so all the more for me!

Hate coconut (in any shape or form) but love glacé cherries. I might make a cherry cake this afternoon.

🤢

Me too! 😁

Ha, like the snack factory it should never have contained nuts at any point.

Annoyingly I missed out a couple of words when I grabbed a copy and paste from the EHRC on my last post so I will repeat with the missed words bolded.

again…

In your view men who say they are women can go into women’s toilets and changing rooms outside work environment but not inside a work environment. Forgetting building legislation and other regulations for a minute,
Who is permitted in these women’s toilets outside of work? Is it all or none or a selection?
men who say they are men
men who say they are transwomen
men who are transwomen
All of these groups of men have been sent to prison for incidents in non work toilets. The difference being the men in the incidents in women’s toilets who were emboldened enough to say they were women gave it as a reason to be there.

Good men stay out.

When the bad men can’t stay out they are given the encouragement of a SHPO for womens and unisex toilets.

If you are going to look at changing the EA, you need to have evidence that it won’t detriment to human rights.

A lot is made of Article 8: Respect for your private and family life
Look what the EHRC say about this.
There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.
This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

• protect national security
• protect public safety
• protect the economy
• protect health or morals
• prevent disorder or crime, or
• protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

I can argue all these points for having single sex toilets - even national security! I have a few interesting stories on that too.

It is lawful, necessary and proportionate, to have single sex toilets as the main provision outside work too. It’s also proportionate to have young children to go into the toilet of the sex of their parent and male cleaners to work in female toilets.

Can I recommend some fibre to counteract the sugar highs on this thread?