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

Just adding my thanks to @prh47bridge

and wondering whether people have plans for fireworks night?

It's certainly true that if somebody puts #girldinner on their instagram post, nobody is going to take them to court for misrepresentation if they are not a girl and the meal they are describing is not dinner.

However, if you want a service to include some people and exclude others, it really does seem sensible to explain clearly who those people are. I really don't think anyone is helped by ambiguous signage.

It's my birthday, but I don't have any plans for the actual day yet (other than having booked it off work).

As light relief, here's FluffyDog willing me to part with my morning banana! 🍌

ETA: and a tiny amount of thigh, soz. I had to crop a load out, as I'm not an exhibitionist. 🤣 (I was just back from running with said hound!)

The problem is that you are assuming your understanding of "women" etc is the "unambiguous" one. But not everyone shares your definitions and values. To me a sign saying women is "unambiguously" for women and trans women.

Nor did FWS settle that, despite everyone's insistence that it did. They were very clear about that. They were not deciding what the word woman means and how it should be broadly used and understood- including on door signage. They were clarifying what those words mean for the purposes of interpreting legal provisions in the EA 2010. Those are very different things and its a very important distinction. Which is why the SC started its judgment by expressing saying that.

Thread #68 of Sandie Peggie's tribunals etc discussion here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5585414-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-68?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Not to be used until this one is full.

Happy Birthday to you 💐
(Gorgeous dog by the way ❤️)

I take one evening off - why's our chessboard all covered in pigeon droppings?

He's a labratwat! 🤣 I agree he's gorgeous though, even when I'm calling him a knobhead.

For the love of God, Lacksie. Stop. Please.

The problem is that you are assuming your understanding of "women" etc is the "unambiguous" one.

Whilst many may disagree with my continuation of this conversation, I think I speak for almost all the posters on this board when I say that I am very, very happy for it to be made clear that the section 3 exceptions apply to sex. If you are a service provider and trying to segregate on the basis of sex outside those exceptions, you really should check with a specialist equality lawyer (not a tax lawyer). I think it sounds awfully like Gilead.

It seems obvious to me that trans people are not helped by ambiguity that leaves it unclear whether or not they can use a service.

Fluffydog's friendly grin undermines the controlling powers of his hard stare.😍😍

Regulated pictograms up to British Standards are unambiguous. There one for unisex.
For the example of my specialist subject, here it is defined in 2006

unisex toilet
toilet that can be used by either sex

"It does not establish a general rule that every sign saying “women” is, as a matter of law, a declaration that the facility is exclusively for biological women."

I'd be pretty annoyed if the carton labelled 'cream' was actually part cream, part milk. I'd also be annoyed if the solid wood cabinet I bought turned out to be veneer. Words matter. Women means female. Biologically female. Not 'I was male but now I've decided I should have been a female.'

Bit of a side-eye from my dog this morning.

Here I am wondering how the L poster is going to entertain us in the dying embers of this thread, when really I should be taking my own gorgeous knobhead for a walk. He's already chased away the bin men. He deserves a reward. 🐶

Do you think either the WI or GG have actually given up though? I suspect there are backroom manoeuvres ongoing and will be for years, sneaky attempts to smuggle males into groups and push for changes to allow it. Despite the law.

Gorgeous doggy! 😍

Lovely dog. Also on a walk - hence multiple typos in last post.

are we full yet?

That it will take mad wangling and finagling makes it pretty plain however that the law works, and that no one is actually in doubt of what it says.

The 'confusion' and the 'complication' is 'it doesn't say what I want it to say' and 'there has to be a way, somehow, in which men can be forced upon non consenting women'.

Which tells you really, everything you need to know about the people busy wangling.

Happy Birthday!

FluffyDog is beautiful!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5585414-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-68

(Just adding this here as we’re nearing the end…)

I seem to have confused people. Sorry! My birthday is bonfire night (@TeenToTwenties asked what people were doing for it...I should've been clearer in my response)!

Early birthday wishes all round then 😆

@MyThreeWords DDog is beautiful too!

Happy non-birthday @NoWordForFluffy

@Lacksie I don't believe that you believe that anyone is saying 'women and transwomen' when they label something 'women'. But I'd be happy for a change that toilets and changing rooms for women are labelled 'Women (biological females only)' or 'Women (for the exclusive use of biological females)' if you'd prefer it and feel that people may be getting confused.