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 ????

But all services have to bide by the equality act, so yeah, yeah it did say a woman is a adult human female for all intents and purposes, and if something says for women, it means female only. this may make you sad, but it’s the law. Why do you think the WI and GG caved instead of fighting in court. Because. They know the law.

That in turn means that the definition of “woman” ..., is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC.

QED

We are still awaiting an example of non-trivial use of 'woman' where EA2010 would not apply.

But single sex facilities (and therefore the signs that designate them) do fall under the EA2010. So it does apply however the toilet is indicated to be for women, be that word, pictogram or opera singer if you are using the EA to justify a sss it must be single sex. If you aren't using the EA you probably don't have cause to make something that excludes 50% of the population so you might get sued and would probably lose.

Cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, cloves, allspice. It's very similar to what we'd get in a "mixed spice" jar in the UK, but more cinnamon-heavy.

Sally's Baking Addiction has a recipe for the exact proportions, I think.

It's also to do with whether they go soft or hard when stale. Biscuits go soft, cakes go hard.

Personally, I don't experience stale biscuits or cakes...or leftover wine (tangent!).

My memory of this is that biscuits go soft as they get stale while cakes go hard.

Was that right?

I've never been quite sure about Jaffa Cakes. Why make intentionally stale cake?

Are we doing this again?

If a provider relies on the Act’s single-sex exceptions, then yes, the statutory meaning of sex applies.

The court did not rule on the meaning of words on signs.

Whether a particular facility qualifies for/ depends on/ requires a single-sex exception in order to be lawful depends on its actual provision and access arrangements; the sign alone doesn’t establish that.

And you can’t conclude that a provider ‘would probably lose’ without identifying the alleged discrimination and considering the particular circumstances.

Yes you can, you can't exclude half the population from something without justification. The justification is the EA, if there isn't a safety, dignity, privacy etc reason then something should be mixed sex.

I really don't understand why you are so determined to make life difficult for trans individuals.

In your world, a label on the door saying "women" or similar does not tell you whether it means biological women or includes trans-identifying males. That can vary from service provider to service provider. And, given that service providers can change their policy at any time, knowing what it meant yesterday tells you nothing about what it means today. So therefore, any trans identifying male seeing that label on the door will have to seek out a representative of the service provider to find out whether they are allowed in. And they will have to do that every single time, even if they have used the facility before.

The label "women" has for decades signified that it is a single sex space for women, and that it is using the derogations under the Equality Act. It is now clear that it can only use those derogations if it is single biological sex. So if we stick to that and a label "women" on the door means biological women, there is no uncertainty. Any trans identifying male can look at the sign and know that they are not allowed in. They need to find an alternative facility.

You may prefer all spaces labelled "women" to be open to trans identifying males, but that is clearly unlawful given the Workplace Regulations and the EHRC guidance (which, whilst not law, is treated by the courts as highly persuasive). The only thing that gives everyone certainty, therefore, is for any space labelled "women" to be for biological women only. Anything else disadvantages trans individuals, as well as disadvantaging anyone looking for a genuine single-sex space.

I think the key determining factor is that biscuits get softer as they go off and cakes get harder. Jaffa cakes are clearly cakes, even though they are shaped and sold like biscuits. Not a hill I will die on, to be honest.

No need for pie weights, just use 1p or 2p coins. One of the TV chefs recommends them as being better than the weigts because they conduct heat really well.

Le sigh.
Different provision is not the same as less favourable treatment. You cannot establish unlawful discrimination simply by pointing out that different groups use different facilities; you need to explain why the arrangement is discriminatory. Again, we’ve discussed this at length already.

You haven’t established that every facility labelled ‘women’ must, by law, operate the same exclusion policy. Whether a particular arrangement is lawful depends on the applicable legal requirements, not simply its label.

Don't worry, somebody already died on it to save you! The Jesus of Jaffa Cakes, if you will! 🤣

The facts are the Workplace regulations 1992 state:

”Facilities for changing clothing
24.—(1) Suitable and sufficient facilities shall be provided for any person at work in the workplace to change clothing in all cases where—
(a)the person has to wear special clothing for the purpose of work; and
(b)the person can not, for reasons of health or propriety, be expected to change in another room.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the facilities mentioned in that paragraph shall not be suitable unless they include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary for reasons of propriety F1and the facilities are easily accessible, of sufficient capacity and provided with seating].

The High Court Judicial review into the interim EHRC applied the SC judgment and said where in these regulations the refer to men and women it means biological sex.

Actual legislation that says Sandie Peggie was legally entitled to a single sex changing room for biological women only.

Legislation rarely sits in a vacuum so case law and statutory guidance set out how the legislation should be put into practice.

So why would anyone be arguing against the application of the SC judgment in matters that come under Equality Act 2010 provisions?

Also the High Court judgment in response to GLP used the same reasoning to clarify the meaning of sex based words in Workplace Regulations, did it not?

"The meaning of the terms 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex" (Paragraph 265(xviii)).

Then go to the EA2010 and read it in conjunction with the above and all is clear.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic @oviraptor21 @Kirschcherries @Lacksie

Why don't you lot start another thread?

You continue to fill up this one.

This is about Sandie Peggie, not the FWS judgement.

It is really rude and disrespectful to @nauticant and the rest of us who want this discuss the subject matter.

To be fair, that was my one and only response to Lacksie!
Can we report posts for persistent derailment? More than happy to have all such posts deleted including replies.

Can we report posts for persistent derailment?
I tried that or said that Lacksie was trolling. MN didn't agree with me. But this was before Lacksie had ruined a number of threads with the same old arguments.

I did on a previous thread, but that is irrelevant. Your answer misses the point totally. If we allow facilities to decide for themselves what the label "women" means as you want, you are disadvantaging trans-identifying individuals. And II didn't say it was unlawful discrimination, so your previous post also misses the point. You want to put trans-identifying individuals in the position where they do not know which facility they are supposed to use - they have to ask the service provider every single time. Why are you so determined to do that?

@ickky To be fair I did take the conversation to the thread set up then poof it was deleted.

I would also point out that we do get recipes, tunnocks, etc that have also extended the threads.

@Kirschcherries Not by hundreds of pages though, and they are usually when WFCHTJ and a bit of light relief.

Continually arguing with trolls is not delightful.

@ickky Mumsnet is allowing it. It’s one of the downsides that threads can get derailed by many things.

I apologise for taking the cake and running with it.