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

It was showing how legally it would not be feasible. The only feasible solution would to label it 'mixed sex'.

This. is. incorrect.

The High Court ruling referenced above, specifically contemplated that it could be legal, in particular circumstance, to have a service labelled women, that includes women and trans women, but not men. The High Court believed there are circumstances where this could be lawful/ compatible with the EA and the SC judgement.

I thought the SC provided legal clarity on single sex spaces,by concluding that the core exemptions in the EA 2010 which permits single sex spaces for legitimate reasons rely on a biological definition of sex and the high court similarly for workplace regulations 1992.
Surely ,that means that males should not access female single sex spaces or they are not single sex spaces?
What clarification do you think was missing and how has it led over interpretation that is harmful and wrong?

It wasn't arguing it could be lawful. It was demonstrating, theoretically, that it could not work.

It's a straw man, in order to answer it I have to accept your premise that I have an interest in pushing for men to be allowed to infiltrate women's spaces. I don't. This is your framing that is a consequence of your gender critical ideology which I don't share.

So, what is your interest? You appear to be interested in finding ways around the rules and the law as it stands.

@Lacksie and there it is again. A simple clear question you will not answer but reams of copy and paste posts from you unpicking the SC ruling.

Again why are you so desperate to allow people of the opposite sex to access single sex spaces? And that includes women who think they are men accessing male spaces as well as men who think they are women entering women’s spaces.

If you have some (s)kin in the game (not my quote but I cannot quite recall who said it) then I understand it is not likely you will get why our passion for the Sandie Peggie case still burns so brightly. We feel like rights of both men and women are being challenged. Boundaries blurred all under ‘be kind’.

Words matter. I have never said to anyone I am gender critical. That is a term used as a negative slant on what I and many on MH are. Sex realists.

That's incorrect. it explicitly stated that could be lawful.

"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”.)

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

Sex is reality. It is biological. It is a fundamental category of life on earth. It is not 'an ideology'.

Transgenderism, on the other hand, is a concept with a whole ideological constructiion and terminology attached. Nobody can actually change sex. It is not reality. It is not part of common consensus and understanding the world over and throughout time.

The law is predicated on consensually and commonly understood reality.

No, but then they're fully captured so they wouldn't be able to acknowledge that they might be discriminating.

He was talking 'in principle' ( an objective consideration of a particular position) not about the working of the law in practical reality

Are you seriously suggesting the SC judgement etc. still permit a service provider to provide a service for “women” but include transwomen without making that clear?

To me inclusive means women includes transmen and non-binary people recorded female at birth.

The Sandie Peggie threads are also safe space for many of us to air our concerns around where this trans ideology is headed. Hence the question about what the + in the acronym stands for.

Once again. It's all about spreading doubt.

If there was it would not involve public facilities that were labelled as 'single sex' or 'women only'. I imagine a small group of friends could include men with trans identities in their special interest group if they wanted - but not if they were advertising it as 'women only'.

We all recognise these groups...they tend to put up a flyer for a 'women only yoga session ( but emphasise "for all women" or " for all who identify as women and non binary") in italics or in some other way. You certainly wouldn't see any of these flyers in the local Somali women's centre, though.

You replied to my comment. Did you see any reason why it was deleted?
I'm fairly sure I didn't break any guidelines in telling them I found their behaviour appalling on that thread and because of that I didn't care what they say about anything from now on. (I can't remember my exact words but I definitely didn't tell them to fuck off or call them any names or anything like that)
I've seen a lot of deletions recently of posts that I thought were pretty reasonable and it's got me wondering what's going on.
I don't think the poster themselves reported me as they responded. I'm actually wondering if ANYONE reported it actually. Some of the posts I've read that were subsequently deleted I can't imagine them being reported. But maybe I'm being paranoid. Feels like the bad old days on here sometimes just recently.

This is clear to anyone who reads the actual judgement as written.

And has been discussed many times, on the threads about the SC judgement.

PPs can't act surprised that they haven't been spoonfed it in every other thread they feel entitled to derail.

I might abandon this thread and start one about the SP Tribunal - anyone?

So you don’t believe some males should have access to female-only spaces?

I think this thread should continue on serving the purpose it's supposed to, and @Lacksie could be respectful enough to set up a thread of their own to discuss their interpretation of the SC ruling.

If Lacksie doesn't want to do it, someone else should and any replies not on topic from Lacksie (or other posters in a similar vein) should be directed to the new thread where that discussion can continue without disrupting the current thread.

One of the reasons for these derailments IMO is simply the derailment. It's taking up thread space and it's irritating on purpose and IMO it's not in the spirit.

Editing to add an apology. I'm not trying to police the thread, just make a suggestion. I typed my post in a bit of a hurry so it probably sounds blunter than it was meant.

Yes, for the purposes of GLP’s foolish and wrongheaded legal challenge.

@Lacksie shall all interested parties take this disagreement to another thread?

The High Court specifically recognised that toilets labelled “women” could admit women and trans women while directing other men to the male toilets, without necessarily being unlawful, depending on the circumstances.

“In principle” means that the argument is legally available, with its success depending on the facts. It does not mean that it has no application in practice.

@CohensDiamondTeeth Done - @lacksie can we suggest you use this new thread unless you prefer to start your own to discuss the SC ruling so these Sandie Peggie threads stay on point.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584765-interpretation-of-the-supreme-court-ruling-biological-sex

Sure.
(I personally think, having an accurate understanding of the SC judgement is important for interpreting the legal arguments in the SP tribunals, but hey ho).

I for one really appreciate it. I like having the uninterrupted line of threads set up by @nauticant specifically for the purpose of following the SP tribunals.

It makes them easier to find for a start.

I'd be a bit annoyed slight understatement if we got pushed out of "our" threads to have to start afresh because of some persistent derailments off topic. We've weathered them pretty well so far I reckon, it's not for lack of trying!

I think a big problem with all of this, regardless of where you stand with your beliefs, is that cognitive bias can be horrifically strong and blinkering.
Believe that the world is a disc and it's turtles all the way down? Curve of the horizon - disc distortion due to the turtle's shell shape. Undetected by spacecraft? Inaccurate recording equipment. We know there is much of the universe we can't detect compared to other species. Many gateways to back up any belief. Logic won't cut it.
Add in the need for external validation. Not just that either side wants the world to validate their reality, but that some statuses confer their own validation. And some people are extremely reliant on more and more validation.
Then add in social, financial, and personal safety concerns.
Facts don't look the same to everyone and many of us do what we feel we must.