Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #68

[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

Thread 67: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584523-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-67 1 October 2026 to ????

Err…. A please would be nice. And no, do your own research. Aren’t you fond of telling people to “educate themselves”?

The SC judgement did not change a single word, full stop or apostrophe in the EA2010. What the SC did is clarified that everywhere the EA2010 uses the word sex, woman and man these should always be interpreted as biological sex, biological woman and biological man.

The judgement was narrow but extremely clear. If service provider chooses to put Women’s or Men’s on the door it means it is only for biological women or biological men.

The judicial review regarding the EHRC interim guidance concluded that the Workplace Regulations 1992 should also interpret the terms man and woman on the basis of biological sex.

FWS 3 backed up the SC judgement that no biological man, including transwomen, should ever be placed in a women’s prison.

The law is clear where there is a need for Single Sex spaces on the grounds of privacy and dignity it means on the basis of biological sex.

No where has the law changed regarding gender reassignment, it is still a protected characteristic and offers protections to trans people. What has changed is the interpretation of the EA2010 by Stonewall has been shown to be incorrect.

Sandie Peggie was legally entitled to believe the communal Changing Room labelled Women’s on the door was for biological women only. DrU was legally entitled to ask the hospital to provide a 3rd space for them to get changed in as the changing room labelled mens did not give DrU the privacy and dignity they were entitled to when getting changed.

It is clear your arguments have not considered the impact of your, and Stonewalls interpretation, of the EA2020 on transmen aka biological women who identify as men.

I can do my own research, but it would be futile, because no where is oxfam advocating for all sorts of rules about policing spaces according to birth sex as per those set out in detail in the UK's EHRC.

If service provider chooses to put Women’s or Men’s on the door it means it is only for biological women or biological men.

yes, yes we've been through all of this, I wholeheartedly disagree . No where in the SC do those words appear.

We don't need to rehash the arguments again that have already been had on multiple of these threads- we can agree to disagree.

So when they’re campaigning for women only toilets are you saying they are wanting it to be segregated by gender abd allow males in? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Really?

You can disagree all you like. Some people disagree the earth is round, others disagree evolution is real.

And you're still wrong. Every single time you say this, you're wrong. 🤷‍♀️ But that's fine, not everyone can read and interpret judgments how they're meant to re interpreted. We don't all have the same skill set. It's just helpful if when it's not your skill set you listen to others who do understand it.

While obviously boosting up the thread helps keep the appalling treatment of Nurse Peggie in our minds, we should spare a thought for poor nauticant, and stay on the actual topic.

I think we're all looking forward to the next series of legal cases where those who made decisions which have effectively ended Sandie's career can talk us through how that happened.

Also the appeal of the original tribunal judgement, which was disappointing all round. Despite receiving the honorific Big Sond (sorry about that), the original judge seemed to produce output that would be better flushed than published.

Im saying they haven't advocated for an elaborate set of rules/ guidance for policing these facilities according to birth sex as per those set out in the EHRC, I don't know how many more times or ways that can be said.

The earth is round,

evolution is real.

The SC did not say in their judgement FWS "if you put a sign on a door that says "woman", it lawfully means X".

These are all facts.

The original judgement was so bizarre. So many slips as well as the random series of words that were supposedly 'quotes'.

It was like Rimmer's Exam paper from early Red Dwarf.

It was 10000 words that might as well have been typed on twitter by a drug addled politician in bed as he nodded off.

A "Covfefe" Judgement.

Yes, it was interesting!

I'm looking forward to the appeal very much.

Do we have a hearing in relation to the issue of bias which wasn't allowed as a ground for appeal soon? That'll ease us into it again nicely!

Is there a Fife-appropriate insert that could better reflect opinions of Big Sond after his Covfefe ramblings judgment? Big Fat Heid Sond? Big Twit Sond?

Big Havers!

Yes I was wondering when that hearing was scheduled for. Anyone know?

(And yes, please ignore the fucking pigeon!)

Well… as meatloaf said “ two out of 3 ain’t bad”. I mean, 66% is a pass at GCSE so theres that….

I don’t think you have any idea of the reality of most actual women’s lives. You are describing the Netflix version.

Those who made the decisions need to adequately justify them. Bumbling Bumberish type explanations/justifications will be scrutinised and challenged by expert minds. Hopefully TT and those versed in the actual law will provide a clarity of commentary to the proceedings. Whatever your view it took the courage of one nurse SP to initially challenge the unlawful policies put into practice by stealth without consultation. FWS etc revisited/clarified the legislative process/outcomes, now it’s Fife’s team’s time to do the jobs they are paid for and explain.

If you believe there is a paragraph stating the legality of signage in the judgement- please do reference it.

Just start a thread of your own relating to whatever you disagree with. Set out your disagreement and explain why you feel like this.

Yes although I imagine no-one is particularly thrilled to have it all raked over again!

You’ve been shown it many many times.

I think Dr Searle is key here for apparently telling Dr Upton to just go ahead and get changed in the female locker room.

Dr Searle is also involved in a very relevant email thread subsequent to the first problematic encounter in said locker room.

So I think we'll all be extremely interested to hear Dr Searle take us through how all that transpired.

The subsequent disciplinary treatment of Nurse Peggie which concerns the local managers which will be also very interesting to go through.

We're talking about a series of events which has ended the career of a 30 year professional in her prime, who worked weekend nights week in week out. As far as we're led to believe, such nurses are as rare as rockinghorse shit.

I can only find "early half of 2027". I think it consists of oral submissions before one E.A.T. judge. So not expected to be lengthy. That's on the " bias " question.