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

I'm hanging my head in shame, Tallisker - the irony is that I agree with you, and yet... 😟
Firm purpose of amendment: I'll do better.

I did exactly the same thing the first time I saw it, a year or so ago, as I clocked it as odd then. I remembered who had used it then when it was used again recently and it confirmed a suspicion I already had.

Exactly. Who cares what desperate bollocks certain posters come out with repeatedly. They’re simply wrong. Someone is wrong on the internet.

Which is why we're still plugging away at the wrong-ness! Despite the utter futility of the situation. 😫

Apologies I am multitasking so I was still on the hygiene. There’s no point linking all the men v women studies washing hands because there are so many that all say the same. I am confident no study has ever said men are more likely to wash their hands than women anywhere around the world. The % I have in my head is it’s around 30% of men wash their hands after going to a public toilet and 65% of women which is obviously a disparity for unisex rooms. Here’s a link that feeds to a few: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/hands-down-men-worse-at-bathroom-hygiene-that-prevents-coronavirus-idUSKBN20S2N6/

This one I remember highlighting as it was observed v claimed in a big sample size of 2800 observed and 1000 claims. When people are being observed, it seems more people wash their hands but it’s still far less than what people claim. This has to be factored into design. For example Korea who are better than most at hand washing:

‘Although 94% of the survey respondents claimed to mostly or always wash their hands after using public restrooms, only 63.4% of the observed participants did wash their hands after using public restrooms. Significant factors related to increased adherence to hand washing were female gender, approximate ages of 20 to 39 years by their appearance, and the presence of other people from the observation’.
What made me laugh about this study was the suggestion men were lying more. To the question, do you always wash your hands after going to the toilet: 75% of men said yes but obs say 55% whereas 84% of women say yes but obs are 72%.

I'm wondering whether the references to possible situations or circumstances where it might be possible to allow women and TIMs to be provided for together, whilst excluding other men, are because not many of those type of cases have come to court so far in the UK?

However, if Giggle v Tickle were argued in a UK court, it would surely result in Giggle winning.
The WI have pre-emptively disallowed TIMs from their membership.
Lesbians are legally entitiled to associate without having to include TIMs.

How other, more informal groups are described, such as WI splinter groups, one of which I saw advertised as being for 'all' women - but this was not a membership org, just a local group of people wanting to include all the 'ladies' and who can be bothered to challenge that - just set up your own group instead with the inclusion criteria you prefer?

Physical facilities in workplaces, schools, services are described and held to more prescriptive regulations and, as has been thrashed out above, are really quite clear on what must be provided and to whom.

I'm so grateful to be a Terf Islander. When are we getting our flags made?

What strikes me as missing from the whole debate is how do we define Gender and Gender Reassignment and all the attached "proposing to undergo" type statements.

Has it been defined for people wanting to get a Gender recognition Certificate? What does that say? I can definitely say that for a man putting on a frilly frock and slapping a load of make up on, still doesn't make him a woman. Nor does having his bits chopped off - that just makes him a mutilated male.

To be clear about paragraph 61 of the judgment in GLP vs EHRC...

It is not a ruling. It is the judge considering the proposition that " If trans women are permitted to use a single-sex female lavatory all biological males must be permitted to use that lavatory" in the EHRC guidance. This rested on the argument that any man excluded would have a claim for sex discrimination. Swift's answer is, in essence, maybe, maybe not. However, his ruling was that the EHRC guidance was not necessarily wrong, but that it would depend on the facts of the case and that EHRC's guidance on this point did not give rise to any legal error.

Swift was clear that a facility labelled "women" that allowed use by trans identifying men was mis-labelled - as far as the law is concerned, it is a mixed sex facility. He did not consider whether a woman encountering a man in the female lavatory would have a claim against whoever allowed them to enter for harassment or discrimination as that was not argued. Taking this paragraph and using it to argue that it is ok to allow trans identifying men to use the facility labelled "women's" is a brave interpretation.

To put it simply, if a service provider excludes trans identifying men from the female facilities and provides alternative facilities for them, they are definitely safe legally. If they choose to allow trans identifying men into the female facilities they have lost the protection of Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010 and are taking a chance.

Of course, none of this is relevant to Sandie's case. Swift considered the Workplace Regulations and made a clear ruling that references to sex in the Regulations must be interpreted as referring to biological sex. GLP's arguments that employers can (or even must) allow trans identifying men to use the female facilities were rejected.

Given the Regulations, women (and men) can clearly have a reasonable expectation that the labels on facilities refer to biological sex. If they do not, this must be made clear on the labels. The fact that such spaces must be correctly labelled is so blatantly obvious that it has never been spelled out in legislation, but it is clear from case law.

See, I don't see myself as trans-exclusionary. I have no issue with transgender people. I'm not bothered that the person who came to collect my oven spent 15 minutes telling me how hard it was to get ready that morning because they'd moved house and didn't have a mirror to do their makeup. It didn't matter to me that they thought I would empathise, being a woman, despite the fact that I wear makeup once every couple of years (last time was in July, before that August 2024, at a wedding). I do care passionately about women's rights and dignity. That means that women's sport, changing spaces and toilets, etc., should be kept for women who were born women.

I know 😫

Yes, I can’t see how Giggle would lose if the case was made here.

Swift was clear that a facility labelled "women" that allowed use by trans identifying men was mis-labelled - as far as the law is concerned

eh? This is a completely bollocks claim. The law does not say that a facility is “mislabelled” because trans women are permitted to use it, nor does it prescribe what such a facility must be called. It is to law as voodoo is to science

I'm not sure that, if they thought about it , that anyone would claim that the Equality Act "prohibits, in principle, a facility or service from being advertised as “for women” while admitting women and trans women, but excluding other men."

Of course we can superficially envisage theoretical scenarios where it may (depending on all the details) be compliant with the Equality Act to have trans-inclusive services that are represented as "for women".

All that is required (I think??) is that there are, in those scenarios, alternative provisions which ensure that no-one suffers any detriment on the grounds of being a man, a woman, a transman, or a transwoman (or on the grounds of any other PC). For example, in a sports centre that provided changing facilities there would have to be equally usable single-sex facilities in addition to the trans-inclusive facilities. And a company providing trans-inclusive "woman only" guided hiking days would likely be defended against sex discrimination cases from non-trans-identified men if they ensured that they had an adequate repertoire of alternative walks that men without a trans-identification could choose from.

But those theoretical possibilities have something of a "so what?" character.

In the case of changing facilities, and similar facilities/services where the single-sex exemption is engaged , these theoretical scenarios would entail FOUR sets of equally adequate facilities: women only, men only, women-and-transwomen, men and transmen. Not realistic, largely because of the expense, but also because (a) women might be able to bring a sex discrimination case on the grounds that, for reasons of safety, only the authentically single-sex facility was adequate for them, and therefore they just have one facility, whereas men have two. (b) the trans-inclusive facilities couldn't, in practice, have the same labels as the actually single-sex ones (it would be confusing - and potentially negligent, if it was found to have contribute to a incident of sexual assault, where a woman entered a mixed-sex environment unknowingly )

And in relation to facilities/services (such as the hiking days) where the single-sex exemptions are not engaged, isn't it already pretty uncontroversial, that trans-inclusive allegedly "women-only" options don't violate the equality act unless non-TI males suffer detriment and decide to take legal action? Certainly we see these sorts of services all the time.
But just because they don't violate the Equality Act, this doesn't mean that such services don't break any law at all. If you advertise a guided walk as "women only" when in fact some men are allowed, you are misleading consumers, and therefore breaking consumer protection law, unless your advertising makes it completely plain (not just in the small print but prominently) that it is not, in fact women-only, ie that TiMs can attend. So, to be legally compliant, it can't truly be labelled a "women-only" option at all - those words might be present as a kind of fluff and colour, but they have to be clearly contradicted.

This is all a long-winded way of saying that not every theoretically consistent extrapolation from a single law has much significance at all, outside of a speculative discussion.

I'm not sure that, if they thought about it , that anyone would claim that the Equality Act "prohibits, in principle, a facility or service from being advertised as “for women” while admitting women and trans women, but excluding other men."

this is exactly what people have been claiming all over mumsnet and beyond since the SC judgment.

The arrogance of ignorance. 🙄Ducks away from answering a direct question we'd all like to hear a response to and rubbishes a knowledgeable lawyer. You are truly not a serious person in any way and make no worthwhile contribution to this debate.

Well, now can you engage with the rest of my post which tries to say how vacuous it is to dwell on the purely theoretical possibility of advertising facilities as “for women” while admitting women and trans women, but excluding other men.

You are truly not a serious person in any way and make no worthwhile contribution to this debate.

Ok 🤷‍♀️

I don't understand why you think in practice a service catering to women and trans woman would would require 4 separate services. It wouldn't. 2 - men and women - could potentially be lawful in all kinds of situations/ circs.

Ooh can you name one of these circumstances…

I think you are reading my post one paragraph at a time and responding to each part as if it were the whole.

Please can you explain how, in particular with reference to the 1992 regs. Thanks so much.

I have to ask you again, because each time you dodge it helps the point everyone else is making, give us an example of the "in all kinds of situations and circumstances" in which this is lawful.

Just one.

Dare you.

I repeatedly have, customer toilets in pubs - that follows paragraph 61's hypothetical.

Other potential examples:

• Customer toilets in restaurants, cafés, cinemas, theatres and museums.
• Separate men’s and women’s exercise or yoga classes that include trans participants.
• Separate recreational swimming sessions, with private changing available.
• Men’s and women’s counselling or wellbeing groups.
• Men’s and women’s craft, reading or other hobby groups.

Define private changing please.

.