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

Apologies, I think it was an AI answer from Google.

Sounds like important research to me; please report back on the success of your experiment.

or indeed any combination of those 3 - personally I think he was a very entitled and indulged male who had no doubt picked up on the general NHS vibe that doctors are more important than nurses and therefore thought he was entitled to trample over the boundaries of all the women at Fife to get his kicks.

Here's what Google's AI engine told me, in response to "is changer a slang word for changing room in any country"

AI Overview

No, "changer" is not a slang word for a changing room in any country.

Oh dear, this is desperate stuff. I mean really thin arguments.

It’s a nurses changing room. Hygiene is important. Nurses have to deal with lots of messiness.

The one changing room in the world that should definitely also have washing and toilet facilities is surely a nurses changing room.

You are too partisan to see the paucity of you your arguments here.

You cannot demand that I demonstrate exceptions to a blanket legal prohibition that does not exist!

There are all kinds of services and activities organised separately for men and women—changing rooms, hobby groups, clubs, swimming facilities and pub toilets. The claim that the Supreme Court judgment requires them all to exclude trans women is wrong. It did not impose a blanket ban on trans-inclusive provision.

Different treatment on grounds of sex does not automatically amount to unlawful direct sex discrimination requiring a Schedule 3 exemption. Direct discrimination requires less favourable treatment, not simply different treatment.

Nor does every failure to provide a service exclusively for those female at birth necessarily indirectly discriminate against women. That also depends on the circumstances. The Equality Act does not impose a blanket requirement for female-only provision.

There are specific requirements for certain facilities in workplaces and schools. Those must be met, potentially through separate provision or suitable arrangements for private use alongside inclusive facilities. They do not establish that the presence of any trans-inclusive facilities in these settings are inherently unlawful, and they certainly do not impose a universal obligation to exclude trans women from every facility or service intended for women in all contexts.

If you want to establish that a particular trans-inclusive service is discriminatory, you need to identify the arrangement and explain how it constitutes direct or indirect discrimination in those circumstances. You cannot start with a blanket assumption that every trans-inclusive service for women is discriminatory and then demand that I prove otherwise.

So the court provided the example of toilets - men and women's. If the facilities are the same and no less favourable, it would not be necessarily unlawful to admit trans women to women's and not men, including if the toilets are specifically labelled as for "women".

This arrangement might not discriminate against men but it would be indirect discrimination against women to force them to share with men even if they are trans identifying men.

There is no legal way to provide a service for women & TIMs that excludes other men.

You cannot start with a blanket assumption that every trans-inclusive service for women is discriminatory and then demand that I prove otherwise.

Good! We're getting somewhere. Because that's explicitly what I'm not doing. All services are legal by default, unless they're not. I'm making the bold claim that whatever gender-segregated service you care to describe I can show that that it's going to be unlawful. Every single example you can give.

If you want to establish that a particular trans-inclusive service is discriminatory, you need to identify the arrangement and explain how it constitutes direct or indirect discrimination in those circumstances.

I'll start: mixed sex (trans inclusive) toilets are inherently discriminatory against women because men reasonbly react very differently to women when someone of the opposite sex is present. Women (reasonably) have concerns for their safety and dignity; men have concern's for the woman's safely and embarassment.

You have a go; either explain why mixed sex toilets aren't disciminatory (and why my argument doesn't stand up) - or describe another gender-segregated service that isn't.

So that’s a no to an example then….

You cannot start with a blanket assumption that every trans-inclusive service for women is discriminatory and then demand that I prove otherwise.

I think we can have a blanket assumption as you have not provided a single example of how your proposed trans-inclusive service for women can work. You cannot provide an example that is legal as such a service cannot exist by virtue of the Equality Act. It's literally impossible to have a legal service for women & TIMs that excludes other men & it doesn't matter how you label it or twist it.

This arrangement might not discriminate against men but it would be indirect discrimination against women to force them to share with men even if they are trans identifying men.

It is wrong to claim that requiring women to share toilets with trans women necessarily amounts to indirect sex discrimination. That might be your opinion, but it is certainly not in any way means or form a starting assumption imposed by law. The Equality Act does not impose a blanket requirement for pubs to provide female-only customer toilets.

I hope that TT and/or Nick W will be able to attend.

You still do not understand the point about toilets that was considered as a hypothetical case in the FWS judgement.

Listen carefully, this is what was said:

Letting only transwomen (but no other men) into the female toilets might not be discrimination against the other men because they have another place to go that is equally nice.

However, letting transwomen into the female toilets is likely to be direct discrimination against female people because single* sex toilets are provided because of women’s need for privacy, dignity and safety.*

Transwomen in female toilets potentially compromise women’s safety in a way that transmen in the men’s toilets do not. As a result, the sexes are not being treated equally if toilets are organised by gender identity.

What they did not say was it is legal to open up the female toilets to trans women.

Read the bloody thing properly.

Lacksie However, the High Court helpful pointed out,...
Are you back to para 61 of Justice Swift again? although I've quoted all the places where he says that a facility designated for women must not be used by men, any kind of men, because then it ceases to be the single-sex provision required by e.g. Workplace Regs.

It wasn't really 'helpful' because it keeps getting quoted out of context, or by people who don't realise that the judge only referred to this because it was suggested by GLP, and in a judge-y kind of way he went along with it in order to dismiss it.

I'll have to go back and check, but I think he said that such a situation, where a facility labelled 'Women' was permitted to be also used by transwomen, would result in discrimination against women, not against men, unless an entirely 100% women-only facility was not provided in addition to the 'Men's and 'Women's that allows some men in'.

Elsewhere, he is categorical that separate single sex spaces must be single sex

37 It is clear from this that the objective of regulation 20 is that men and women should use conveniences in separate rooms, not together in the same room.

38 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.

In his ruling, and this is true of the SC ruling as well, he stresses that the intention of a law is crucial - when regulations that required separate sex-segregated facilities in some setting were written, it is obvious that they meant the words 'sex' 'woman' and 'man' in their accepted definition.
Although laws may accept some changes in meaning, a complete reversal of word meanings, e.g. that 'woman' can also mean 'some men' is rejected by Swift and the SC judges.

No it doesn’t, but a very easy case could’ be made that organising toilets by gender ID rather than sex is directly discriminatory against female people.

Service providers are not allowed to subject users to a better or worse service depending on their sex.

Transwomen are a greater threat to women than transmen are to men. The situation is unequal.

This is so fucking obvious.

Why do you think women campaigned for women’s toilets in public places in the first place?

Before telling me to “read the bloody thing properly”, please distinguish between what the judgments say and your own interpretation.

The hypothetical about admitting trans women while excluding other men comes from paragraph 61 of the High Court’s GLP v EHRC judgment, not FWS. It recognises a potentially strong argument that this could be different but not less favourable treatment, depending on the circumstances.

Yes, paragraph 52 also recognises that failing to provide female single-sex toilets could constitute indirect sex discrimination against women. But it expressly makes that fact-dependent, including whether there is disadvantage and whether the arrangement is proportionate. Paragraph 62 refers to that possible claim again. Neither says that admitting trans women is “likely to be direct discrimination” against women.

FWS discusses privacy, dignity and reasonable objections in explaining the single-sex exceptions. It does not establish your assertion that trans women compromise women’s safety while trans men do not compromise men’s.

Paragraph 217 even acknowledges that some trans women may use female facilities without compromising other users’ privacy and dignity.

I have never claimed that every trans-inclusive arrangement is lawful. The High Court upheld the guidance overall, while recognising that particular discrimination questions depend on the facts. A possible, fact-dependent discrimination claim is nothing like establishing a blanket prohibition or starting assumption that trans women inclusive women's services are unlawful. That is the distinction I have been making.

Of course, as he’s a biological female, dontcha know.

@Lacksie

The gauntlet is down. I claim that any service you nominate - any imaginable service at all - that is gender segregated will be both a detriment to one sex or the other and unjustifiable under any of the exemptions in EA2010 Schedule 3.

It's a bold claim, and you only need a single counter example - just one - to show I'm wrong, and that gender segregated services can be lawful in the UK.

So, put up or shut up.

That is the distinction I have been making.

It's a distinction without a difference, because every single gender-segregated service will be unlawful, not because of a blanket prohibition but because each and every one will be so on its own distinguishable set of facts.

Prove me wrong. Just one example will do.

I think your desperate adherence to this ideology is causing you to lose your critical thinking faculties.

Seconded.

I wonder if Judge Kemp has given up his day job? There's an uncanny resemblance with a piss poor grasp of the law.

WRT why Sandie needed a private changing room with washing and toilet provision - any woman knows you need this basic level of facilities if you have menstrual flooding. Particularly if you are a nurse on duty and will be going back to nursing patients - basic health and safety.

No woman should ever have to plead or justify or explain why they want single sex ONLY spaces, services, sports, etc., etc., that excludes ALL males.

If TW don't want to share spaces with members of their own sex then they need to ask for and be provided with an alternative if necessary, the single sex spaces for women are NOT an option as an alternative.

As for the blathering on about the High Court case that GLP took - GLP LOST the case. The High Court is beneath the Supreme Court so therefore the Supreme Court Judgement is the judgement.

If you want to test the bit in the High Court Summary that you keep banging on and on about @Lacksie it will need a case to be brought to Court to do so and as there hasn't been all your endless wittering on about what was mused on in that case is irrelevant.

TW have NEVER had a right of entry into female single sex spaces, services, sports, etc., if the sign on the door says 'Women' it is NOT for them. Why is it impossible for some TW to behave like decent human beings and respect that?

Don't worry I know the answer - absolute misogny and hatred of women.

As always, when transactivists rock up on here and start lecturing women with their erroneous interpretations of the law, they give a real life example of how desperate tras are to violate the boundaries of girls and women.

There's nothing they won't argue with, despite showcasing their ignorance of UK laws. There's no aspects of women's experience they won't dismiss in search of men's unconditional access to women's spaces.

Kudos to those who take the trouble to correct the endless stream of AI generated misinfomation.

I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that it’s a bold claim.

Perhaps this is a debate for another time. I have no doubt you could come up with arguments to support your opinion that including trans women inherently compromises women’s privacy, dignity and safety in every conceivable context. I’ve heard those arguments before; I don't share them and have my own views - which I'm sure you've heard too. How a court of law might come down hearing both our sides on each is an entirely open question.

Yes, we can talk about sport and fairness, toilets and changing rooms, biology and transition, safeguarding and violence against women and girls. But I wasn’t here to hash out our respective opinions on these things.

My intervention on this thread was much narrower: to challenge the widespread claim that the Supreme Court judgment establishes a blanket ban on trans women using any service intended for women. It does not.

Whether a particular arrangement is lawful depends on the circumstances. If you want to show direct or indirect discrimination, you need to establish that on the specific facts, you can't simply assert that every conceivable arrangement must be discriminatory. I’m not going to debate an endless series of examples with you.

You seem incapable of producing a single legal example of a service for women & transwomen that excludes other men so I'm confident that requiring women to share toilets with trans women always amounts to indirect sex discrimination but you do you.