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

Some women need genuinely single sex spaces because of past trauma or religious belief and practice.
Why are you so hellbent on ensuring those women are either deceived by what's on the door, or unable to use the space because they know they can't trust the labelling to be truthful?

I’ve explained this to Lacksie but they appear to lack understanding and empathy.

@Taztoy, I believe you should be able to request a doctor that you are comfortable with.

As a broader question, why is it that you are so intent that I answer your questions about my opinions on things? It's clear that you don't agree with my opinions, and when I share them you express that you find it really upsetting, typically in an manner that is very accusatory that I should have spoke. So why continue to ask? You know that we don't agree.

you haven’t answered my actual question.

Because you won't like my response, and it will simply trigger a lot of accusations about my person and my character.

A very unequal contest between legal knowledge and special pleading.

You mean you want some men to be allowed into women's spaces because it suits you?

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.

I would add there are regulations for signs.

Luckily we have confirmation that toilet cubicles must lead out on to a single sex environment. But it’s obvious anyway. And so the labels not only define the people permitted in them, but often the design too.

Regulations, Legislation and British Standards have been round for decades. Standards are set on designs from pictograms on toilet doors the positioning of hooks in a toilet cubicle. I know building control people and they would confirm standards are sex based.

A toilet for a man or a woman would need to be in its own room with a washbasin and drying facilities.

If a toilet was for a woman or a transwoman, it would still need to be in it’s own room as all designs are sexbased.

There would have to be a new pictogram invented for a transwoman (and transman to exclude them if necessary). These would need to be defined. It would then have to undergo discussions and testing before being confirmed as a standard. This will take several years. British standards BS 8501 and BS ISO 7001 provide standard pictograms for male and female and unisex toilet facilities.

There is no non binary pictogram.
There is no ‘gender neutral’ pictogram.

So you think a trans woman should be able to turn up when I request a woman?

you do know that would be assault because I would not have consented to that? And you’re ok with that? And ok with the incredible damage it would do to my mental health?

Anyone can request, do you believe the service is obliged to provide what has been requested?

We have heard that Dr Upton was prepared to fail to do so.

You must have the patience of a Saint @prh47bridge the comebacks to you from Lacksie are painful, desperate and utterly tedious.

And the reason I’m asking @Lacksie is because I want to move the discussion on from “they just want to pee”.

This kind of response is exactly why I’m going to respectfully decline to answer your hypothetical questions.

I provide a response, and you immediately escalate it into “so you’re OK with assault and incredible damage to my mental health”.

That isn’t a fair representation of anything I’ve said, and it makes genuine discussion almost impossible. This is a recurring pattern whenever we interact.

it is a fair representation of what will happen if a man turns up when I’ve asked for, and been told, im getting a woman.

Dr Upton thought he would’ve been entitled to turn up.

Coward.

Exactly, way back down the thread I pointed this out to Lacksie.

I would classify that post as name calling.

It is exactly what you have been saying, over and over again. That you do not believe that the law that has at long last been framed to protect women should be honoured.

Women, not transwomen, because transwomen are men.

But but but the men with the laydee feelz might get sad so budge up wims, no one cares if you are sad. You can't expect the door marked women to be for your exclusive use, the men want to use it and their wants matter.

I would classify it as an accurate assessment

As Taztoy said, you do realise your esteemed Dr Upton said he was entitled to treat a woman who specifically asked for a female HCP, don’t you? Do you think he was wrong in that?

calling an agricultural digging implement a spade is indeed name calling

Just pretend the word means something less hurty then.

Why should woman be the only word that gets to mean whatever you want it to mean?

I asked @Lacksie that same question a couple of threads ago, but they ignored my question and didn’t respond.

I’ll be interested to see if you get an actual answer (but I won’t hold my breath).