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

Good point Hedgehog. I thought she was responding to the criticism she had from Kemp (by acknowledging Isla Bryson for example, though I suspect she might not have known his name or crime IRL) but yes this whole thing must be so stressful for her. I’ve only ever been involved with two ETs as a witness through work. Both were utterly batty and we knew in any sane world we would win, but for both we were talking about them for months beforehand, having sleepless nights at the prospect of cross examination and worrying like blazes. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be the main focus with the eyes of the nation on me. Maybe we need to do thank you cards to Sandie too.

Why? The regs require separate use of facilities by male and females , so if it's a private lockable space why does that not meet the requirement? Also has to be suitable etc, but what evidence do you have these rooms weren't? Other people used them. The reality was there was a place SP could get changed privately, as others did.

The regulations do not say that every changing room itself must contain washing facilities. Regulation 21 instead requires suitable washing facilities to be “in the vicinity of any changing rooms required by these Regulations"

I do accept there may be arguments that these facilities do not meet the requirements of the workplace regs. But that depends on a more detailed analysis of the circumstances/ facts. What I object to entirely is this false claim that by simply allowing DU to use a changer labelled "women" NHS Fife were breaking the law. That's a much stronger claim that is not supported in the legislation.

apologies everyone, I could have solved my own “changer” query if I was using AS correctly - the idiot I am just searched on newest so it didn’t filter out changed or changes etc…. Am off to sign up for AS Beginner Classes…

That said, how interesting. When I was pondering I had a sense of a name but couldn’t place it - you know that feeling of getting a “whisp” of a notion but it dissipates before you’re conscious of it (there should be a word for it!) Anyhow, once I wrangled AS, the whisp materialised and no shock was felt but a Homeresque “d’oh”

What I object to entirely is this false claim that by simply allowing DU to use a changer labelled "women" NHS Fife were breaking the law. That's a much stronger claim that is not supported in the legislation.

They were. It is. You're wrong. Keeping saying that white is black doesn't make it any more true the 50th time than it was the 1st.

I haven't just repeatedly claim black is white. I've clearly explained - using case law and legislation why that isn't necessarily true- it depends on the circumstances.

you are free to disagree of course. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

On Christmas Eve SP need to change and deal with period flooding - she need to access a toilet and hand washing facilities to do this.

If a storeroom makes a perfectly adequate changing room DrU could have used it why didn't he?

Surely it's makes more sense for the one man to use it rather than the dozens if women.

I'm trying to understand how the detail you are citing about the relative position of changing facilities and washing facilities is relevant here, but in case there is some relevance, here is a passage from the Approved Code of Practice and Guidance for the Regs

The changing facilities should be fitted with adequate seating and contain, or connect directly with, clothing accommodation and showering/ bathing facilities.

(https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf)

As for this sentence in your post What I object to entirely is this false claim that by simply allowing DU to use a changer labelled "women" NHS Fife were breaking the law ... well, the lawbreaking (in respect of the 1992 Regs) lies in the simple fact that they weren't providing legally compliant single-sex changing spaces. You've recast this issue in terms that the legislation doesn't deal with , such as 'allowing' and 'labels', which just muddies the water.

(h)separate facilities are provided for men and women, except where and so far as they are provided in a room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside and the facilities in each such room are intended to be used by only one person at a time.

This means that if the facilities are in a lockable room, that has to include the sink. So the choices are communal single sex sinks, or a single lockable room that contains both toilet and sink, which can be used by either sex.

I'm not sure was it this thread or another one, but the data from hospitals indicates that toilets used by men need to be cleaned and sanitised far more frequently than those used by women only, in order to keep them safe, another financial consideration for planners.

It's a serious public health issue, not just in healthcare settings.

Who could imagine that a jet of urine coming from standing height through a flexible, multi-directional tube might cause more...spray...than a jet of urine coming from sitting height from a fixed point? It's a complete mystery.

Fun fact: Nearly all mammals (over 3kg in weight) void their bladders in 21 seconds. Men have an average bladder capacity of 700ml vs women's 500ml, the difference owing to the presence of reproductive organs in women. So males void at a higher pressure because they have a longer urethra and prostate gland.

It’s the flush. And how it covers the sink and hand dryer if they are in a close proximity.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24686-5

There’s a scientist who goes round the U.K. and swabs handdryers - she demonstrates you can end up with them blowing more bacteria on your hands than you started with. If you don’t scrub the handdryer and change the filter, the dryer provides a nice place for bacteria to grow.

Absolutely. The trouble is that genderists have little common sense or understanding of the reality of female experience, let alone any compassion for women or consideration of women’s needs. The wants of men are paramount.

Usefully, they demonstrate this clearly in their many tiresome posts on here.

The regulations require changing room to provide suitable security for the worker's clothes, i.e. lockers. The store room and well-being rooms did not, as far as we know, have such facilities, so they do not meet the requirements of the regulations. They were not female changing rooms. However much you try to wriggle out of it, NHS Fife acted unlawfully by allowing Upton to use the female changing rooms as it meant they no longer had a female changing room as required by the Workplace Regulations.

Yes, when transpeople are discussing ‘gender neutral’ designs there is an often a sexed difference to responses. Parents of trans children have a preference depending on the sex of their child too.

Jolyon Maugham has had to balance the wants of some of his funders who are men who only want to use women’s toilets and his children who he’ll be promoting universal. Men can’t use women’s so it all has to go universal so there’s friction there. All ‘inclusive’ roads lead to individual (exclusive!) universal rooms.

It’s obvious when you look at all the legislation and regulations that it’s all sex-based. It’s the world we were all living in. There’s not even a design called ‘gender neutral’ - it’s a nonsense term.

I would bet the basement changing room was designed there by a man.

It is scientifically proven women notice things on the periphery more. We don’t even realise we’re doing it because it’s natural to us. Women designers would design differently. I can’t remember there being a massive argument that SP should be forced to use the basement from the women ‘higher up’.

At best, being very charitable, Upton showed he had no concept of how women think.

The study that looked at different levels of cleanliness in men's and women's loos swabbed the exit doors of the facilities (not cubicle doors) where it wasn't splashback or a plume, though both those things contribute, it was men being less likely to wash their hands.

Please keep them out.

The '21 seconds' study is rather flawed. It didn't study actual animals, it took 1 bladder and created models of it at different sizes, then allowed them to free drain. No accounting for surrounding structures, muscle pressure, different fullness etc.

That’s one of quite a few recent studies on toilet ventilation, hygiene and pathogens.

In 2025, another hospital study by the University of Surrey revealed that from 2,636
flushes, 43.7% (1,153 flushes) of people using a hospital toilet skipped handwashing, with figures peaking at 61.8% on certain weeks.

I do love it when judges spend weeks analysing the law, write a judgment (some of them are duff and go to appeal, yes, but others like the SCJ stand) and some random on the internet spends pages ranting about how they know better.

That's nice. And yet that opinion isn't going to change the law. Or inspire any woman here to... well. Do what? Announce that they surrender women's needed rights to single sex spaces?

It's a touching faith in the power of the women of MN but it's probably not realistic.

I'm sure at the SP appeal we'll hear more about all this because some of that judgment was interesting to put it mildly, but even that judge had to be clear that as soon as SP shared a problem the two of them should have been given separate spaces. And no, you can't punish women who won't take their clothes off for men by sentencing them to a cupboard to get changed in. Any more than you'd accept sticking the man who wants non consenting distressed women to get their kit off so he can meet his own needs in a cupboard to get changed in.

It just all boils down repeatedly to the guidance - which is that men have to accept that women have rights too, sorry, and that means they get single sex spaces which those men cannot go into. AND those men and others who have gender related needs, must have an alternative, accessible and proper resource that is gender neutral so they are not without a space that fits their identification away from their biological sex.

What other answer realistically is there?

There was a flurry of toilet studies as interest picked up after Covid.

Counting flushes is a reasonable use-proxy for women's loos. Not much good for many urinal designs though.

And that study really needs a breakdown by sex.

Also, weirdly, it counts handwashing before as well as after flush.

Firstly, the word "changer" is used to describe changing rooms in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These countries have been totally captured by gender ideology.
Dr Upton is a heterosexual male, who has no respect for women or their rights. Why did he decide to use women's changing rooms?
There are only three answers - he is a misogynist who hates women, he wants to have power and control over women, he is a pervert who is taking advantage of the NHS rules on transgender people in the workplace.