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 know that but I think it’s important to bear in mind where the logic they’re coming out with is headed.

Multiple posters have shown you that your 'facts' can be wrong, Lacksie, even posters with legal backgrounds.
See @prh47bridge at 10.28
Any comments please Lacksie?

I am really sick of saying this but I never cease to be amazed at the number of women who are more than happy to give up womens' rights in favour of Men. They won't love you for it either.

You do not consent for other women Lacksie (et al)

Indeed.

Good point @RoyalCorgi but unfortunately the law was not really clarified until the SC ruling in 2025 and Sandie’s case started in 2023 when workplace were still operating on not offending trans people rather than applying logic based on biological sex and the rights of biological men and women to have single sex spaces.

Question to onlookers : what did you think of the judge's body language? Reading Sandie's first tribunal from TT I sensed that Kemp was really not favourable to her and did not bother to try and hide it, explicitly complaining that Naomi took up too much of his precious time and kowtowing to Upton. I couldn't grasp the affectionate "Big Sond" Nickname here on MN. Unfortunately the TT impression was correct and he was absurdly unfair in his ruling. Should we brace ourselves for the same?

(I realize I sound like an insufferable "I told you so" and I'm sorry, it really isn't my goal)

The issue is you've fundamentally misunderstood the Equality Act. The default is that services in general should be made available to everyone, however the Single Sex Exceptions allow a service to restrict operations to one sex only where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Choosing to operate a service for women and transwomen would not be legal, as it would be sex discrimination against the men who are prevented from accessing it, and as some biological males are being allowed access then the Single Sex Exceptions don't apply.

I doubt it’s the poster’s first rodeo with these arguments. It’s all pretty familiar stuff.

Or Dr's who are prepared to accuse nurses of failing in their duty of care/ putting patients at risk but can't evidence this and were so unbothered by it at the time that they didn't report it? They remain deserving of what they want even though they either deliberately lied or failed to report something they had a legal and moral duty to report. Why are one side told their less that perfect at all times behaviour means they are unworthy but the other side remain worthy when they behave badly?

I asked Christian Concern if we could send postcards for them to pass on our good wishes to Jennifer Melle, and they agreed. (I specifically asked about sending via a third party to Jennifer because it could be especially awkward if an avalanche of cards arrived at her workplace).

From CC:
"Thank you for your email. Yes, we would be happy to receive any cards or other messages of support for Jennifer to our office at 70 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 8AX."

You really cannot say anything positive, can you? So much for #BeKind. 🙄 I'm truly glad to be on the wrong side of history if your posts are typical of the "right side."

You're conflating 2 separate points.

1. It permits, but does not mandate, single-sex provision.

1. It states that single sex, necessarily and by definition, means exactly that. Single sex.

Therefore if a women-only space/service is provided, then it is only for women and excludes all men. Always. Otherwise it is not women-only.

Please could I respectfully ask that unpicking the FWS judgment be taken to another thread?

The threads specifically about SP have reached over 66,000 posts and it is quite tiring to keep seeing the same old FWS arguments hashed out and facts ignored on a thread that is about a specific tribunal that many many people are trying to keep up with.

I know some people might not be familiar with the MN etiquette of having different threads for different discussions but please do stick to it if you can.

There are some posters who come on here, not because they want to discuss, listen or learn, but because they want to spread doubt.

The 2025 case clarified the law for trans people with a GRC. The law for those without had already been sorted in the earlier FWS case, which was earlier in 2023 IIRC.

Upton had no GRC.

Yes I agree.

I would like to thank all of the forum members who have C&P tribunal tweets, and also Nick W. I hope to have time this evening to read the Genderblog entry about the summing-up yesterday.

Does anyone know (roughly) how long we need to wait for the judgment?

But it didn’t seem the RCN offered any comparison as to how they had dealt with other cases . Or any other GC cases to evidence they were not discriminating?

I second this.

(Having said that, it’s been requested a number of times this week, but sadly none of our new friends seem eager to start a new thread…)

Yes - it’s reality vs “something more important than reality” at bottom. The enlightenment vs “faith plus the pressure to join the true faith to one’s own detriment”.

The following is unequivocal and comes from (surprise, surprise) a BBC article.

"It said in situations where single sex facilities are required, they should only be used by people of the same biological sex.
It also said that, for instance, a trans woman - a biological male who identifies as a woman - would be expected to use a gender-neutral toilet or male toilets, not those for females."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lrd0ey074o

it does not establish a blanket obligation to exclude trans women from every service intended for women

You are correct.

However, where a service is stated to be for women if you include transwomen you have to make that clear. You also need to permit all men, not just those who identify as women, otherwise it is sex discrimination. What you cannot do is lie.

A good example is the Women’s institute - as a charity it was set up for women. The WI is inclusive of trans people as “women” includes transmen and non-binary people recorded female at birth.

If the WI want to include transwomen they are free to change their charitable aims and include men, which naturally includes trans women.

No. Ad hominem arguments are not intrinsically bad or disrespectful. There are good ad hominem arguments and bad ones, just as with other types of argument. Also, I can legitimately point to the fact that your arguments are partial without feeling obliged to fill in all the gaps - chiefly because my reasons in trying to address them aren't to convert you (clearly that isn't going to happen) but to clarify for you why it isn't remotely constructive for you to be posting on this thread in the manner you do.

But, having said that, here is an example of an argument of yours that seemed at best muddle-headed and at worst cynical. I believe that in an earlier post you said that NC's argument boiled down to the fact that the RCN was seeking to be a "trans-friendly organisation", and she was presenting that as wrongful. (Forgive me if I have misremembered the detail of your point..)

Well, no, that was no part of her argument whatsoever. Her claim was a different one - that RCN had adopted gender ideology, which she summarised as the belief that TWAW and TMAM.

Of course RCN, and the NHS, should be trans-friendly. It is their duty to treat all patients and staff with an equality of compassionate respect, no matter what their beliefs or what they look like.

That involves taking steps to minimise, as far as is practical, the discomfort that a trans patient is likely to feel in an environment where their sexed body may well be relevant to their illness, their treatment and the ward on which they are accommodated. Personally, I'm open to the idea that those steps should include trying to avoid gratuitously spiking their gender dysphoria by using correct-sex pronouns in their hearing, though others may disagree.

What it doesn't involve is believing that trans women are women, or pretending to believe it, or requiring others to believe it, or tolerating by inaction an atmosphere in which people within the organisation feel entitled to aggressively police those who don't believe it.

Two separate things - being decent to transpeople on the one hand, and adopting a set of highly contentious (and I would say false) beliefs on the other. And yet you elide them. Why?

Hello just popping in quickly to say

Paragraph 61 of this judgment specifically considers a rule allowing trans women to use the female toilets while directing other men to the male toilets. Where the facilities are materially similar, the judge recognises a strong argument that this constitutes different treatment without being less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. He expressly adds that the circumstances of the case would be decisive.

The same paragraph explains that those toilets would count as “mixed-sex” under the Equality Act, while still being labelled “women’s”. It therefore expressly contemplates a potentially lawful arrangement that includes cis and trans women while excluding other men.

So, no, according to this judgement : the Supreme Court ruling does not impose a blanket ban on trans women using any facility labelled “women’s”. Rather, whether a particular arrangement is lawful depends on the circumstances and the applicable legal requirements.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/good-law-project-EHRC-AC-2025-1953-judgment-13Feb26.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

"Whether different treatment is also less favourable treatment is, therefore, a qualitative question. In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. However, the circumstances of the case would be decisive. (For the purposes of the EA 2010 the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of the Claimants’ submission in this case it would still be labelled “women”.)"

However, where a service is stated to be for women if you include transwomen you have to make that clear. You also need to permit all men, not just those who identify as women, otherwise it is sex discrimination. What you cannot do is lie.

Incorrect according to a recent high court ruling. Please see my post above.

Yes. Sorry. <Sits on hands and puts 20kg weights on lap>