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

FWS 3 was unequivocal about Women’s Prisons https://forwomen.scot/19/06/2026/fws-v-scottish-ministers-iii-the-judgment/

178] Sex segregation in prisons in Scotland is lawful. The statutory scheme, based on the EA 2010 and the 2011 Rules, requires separate prison accommodation for men and women. Following FWS 2, this means sex segregation in prisons according to biological sex.

[179] Insofar as the Prisons Guidance allows SPS to accommodate trans prisoners in prisons for the opposite biological sex, it is in conflict with the requirement that prison accommodation be provided separately for men and women. That constitutes a mis-statement of the law.

[181] All prisoners have rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Trans prisoners have rights under Article 8, but this does not extend to a right to be accommodated in a prison for the opposite biological sex. Article 8 rights are qualified and there is a justification for maintaining sex segregation in prisons. The statutory scheme imposes a bright line rule and sex segregation in prisons does not admit of exceptions on the basis of Article 8 rights.

[184] In all the circumstances, the Prisons Guidance is unlawful and the petitioner is entitled to orders for declarator and reduction.

Ruth Paterson on X: "The irony that the RCN are cancelling contract with an Israeli drug firm but child eunuchs are on brand. “We know how important it is that the RCN only enters commercial relationships with companies that represent the values of the nursing profession.” https://t.co/1D82t3lZZ… / X

Jennifer has been treated abysmally in all of this. I will send her a card, it is a lovely idea.

I'd like to know why it is you are trying to find ways of including men ( however they 'identify) into women only/female spaces? What is the reasoning, the purpose and whose interests does it serve?

None of them ever answer this.

It’s not “incorrect” at all, read your own quote. He said there was scope to argue it, not that it was incorrect.

The judgement was not about " banning" anyone. It was about a clarification of the law as it was written and intended.

It was never intended that some men be permitted into 'women only' spaces and categories. That people have been falsely led to believe that they were permitted suggests that the injured party here is in fact women and girls - who have had their boundaries breached, their protections under-mined, and all under false premises.

He was musing about it, essentially kicking that question for someone else to deal with. He notably didn’t say the EHRC were wrong about it. I think most of us are very familiar with that judgment and the misinformation spread about it by the losing party.

Yes, because clarity is the enemy of trans activism.

He also said that women subjected to the presence of men in their female only space would potentially have a discrimination/harassment claim themselves. Men who identify as women will need to use a third space.

If anyone wants to tell me off for responding have at it, but I’m not going to sit here while incorrect claims and misinformation is posted.

Is incorrect that this is settled in law, or was what the SC determined. The judgement did not say this

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.

The SC determined that women in single sex spaces means biologically female people of any age. There is no special allowance for some men.

Go on, Lacksie, what is your motivation for allowing men into female single sex spaces?

I’d be interested in your answer to the question that others have asked. Apologies if you have already answered, but why are you putting so much energy into allow some males into female-only spaces?

If you are relying on the SSE it needs to be an actual single sex space. Otherwise it is potentially discriminatory to both men who cannot use it and the women for who the space was created.

What do you mean? I just quoted a legal decision that says it may well be lawful depending on the circumstances, to provide a service for women and trans women, excluding men. It's right there in black and white.
The SC never issued a mandate ban on trans women from women's services/ facilities. Continuing to insist that it did is simply false.

The judgement has been widely interpreted that way, in the public and policy domain, including by the EHRC, but it's not what the judgement said.

The Women’s Institute were threatened with court action by a man (it’s documented in threads here) who wanted to attend because he wanted to take part in some activities that he couldn’t easily do elsewhere, on specifically this basis. There were some legal letters ISTR but before the matter was explored fully the WI announced their policy change that “trans women” could no longer be members. Blaming the SC.

Straw man.

It didn’t say that. Why are you making up the wording?

The existence of a single sex space is only possible when there are zero members of the opposite sex in it.

That was an example of the SC following the logic of permitting some men, but not others, into women only spaces. It was not meant as an opening to actually pushing for some men in women's spaces. It was showing how legally it would not be feasible. The only feasible solution would to label it 'mixed sex'.

Why would anyone want to argue for some men in women only spaces, anyway? Whose interests would that serve - and what would be the overall purpose? Might you respond to this simple question?

Also

The Swift judgment wasn’t remotely favourable to gender identity ideologists, despite the desperate Maugham spin.

What do you mean?

i'm actually interested in your response. i think everyone would be. Wouldn't it be quicker to ouline your response than to engage in deflection?

I have to assume ( in the absence of clarity) that your only possible response would reveal whose/what interests you are pushing for, and it would also reveal the negelact to even consider the established interests and protections of women and girls ( female people).