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 ????

I think this is called pissing in the wind

An ye're no referring tae yon Michael!

I actually meant Lack but it does work both ways

My prediction is based on the courts following the law. Your stance is that the courts might decide to ignore the law. Even an unqualified person should be able to see which of us is likely to be right.

In any event, my original point remains. You want to make it impossible for anyone to know whether a facility labelled "women" is for biological women only or allows in trans-identifying males. I want to give certainty, as does the EHRC (whose guidance is treated by the courts as authoritative - i.e. as near to binding as you can get without it being an Act of Parliament).

How about dear Jolyon and his fund raising antics.

I guess even he knows its a non starter.

Your nickname is very apt by the way..........

I was thinking of you when someone asked me for a better name for Thon High Heidyin Briefly Kent As Big Sond

I've been out of the kingdom for 33 years and I'm a bit rusty

Your prediction rests on your assumption that the courts will agree with your interpretation of the law.

I have no objection to certainty about who a facility is for. What I object to is a blanket rule that every facility for women must inevitably exclude trans women, regardless of context or other factors. That’s the “certainty” you want—and believe the law requires. I think that is profoundly wrong.

Legal expert laxy now dominating over on a thread about gender incongruence. Asked for evidence to back up word salad expertise on everything and as usual ‘kids are home’ will do it later. Yet then continues posting. Unbelievable.

I'm not as polite as you, so the first thing that came to my mind efter the High Heidyin made that mess wiz the auld Fife expression "Awa'n'shiteabrick'n'printyernameoanit!"

An alternative would be the one that I heard an old miner uttering when the conversation was about Ian McGregor (while the strike was on): "That man widnae ken a churl fae a purl!"

churl = small piece of coal

purl = small piece of excrement

However you decide to proceed I am enormously grateful to you for the threads thus far.

Unfortunately I think whichever path you choose the whole park is prone to the unwelcome appearance of resident bore wanging on about how actually there isn't actually a law that says that it is murder if you kill someone by stabbing them 53 times in the back of the knee with a purple biro so they could kill you like that if they wanted to.

I hope Sandie gets justice and that all women get single sex spaces to change in.

You could crowd fund like many women have done to bring their cases to court.

Maybe that's the end goal.

Back to SP’s case, DU was certain he could access WSSS, he had done it before joining Fife and assumed it was his right. On what advice did he assume this, if it was Stonewall advice it has been refuted? The NHS institutions and the others involved in similar tribunals should have done their homework, then appropriately provided facilities. The tragedy of this mis advice is there may have trans folk who would not have taken the far reaching decisions they did has they known the reality of the situations they currently find themselves in. The utopian trans acceptance they craved was all smoke and mirrors and bound to end in tears when challenged, evidenced by the number of cases.

There is always the big american charitable foundations - such as the Pritzker Foundation. They have certainly donated in the past to the furtherance of trans ideology on this side of the pond. Stonewall received all sorts of funding for its campaign.

Because Lacksie is here with an agenda.

https://smileymovement.org/news/philanthropy-jennifer-pritzker-the-first-openly-transgender-billionaire

Bet the staff at the Health and Safety Executive, Building Safety Regulator and British Standards would be most amused that they’ve got hundreds, nay thousands, of design doc pages wrong for decades. What is to become of their designs called separate sex toilet washrooms? What could separate sex possibly mean?

Then there’s the term unisex. It is all categorised by sex. Nothing in building regs is by gender. This is no gender-neutral design - it is a made-up term.

And why the Scottish government and prison service lost against fws in their most recent case.
If its a service or facility for women that means no men not even men with special feelings

When have I argued for a blanket rule that every facility for women must exclude trans women? Here is a clue - I haven't. It depends what the facility is. However, if it is a toilet or changing room labelled "women", that must mean biological women if it is to comply with EHRC guidance and give certainty.

Which bit of what I've said is it that you think is my interpretation as opposed to what the courts have actually said or what the law actually says?

Yes the tax man decided that jaffa cakes were chocolate biscuits and put a luxury goods vat on them McVitties argued that they were chocolate cakes and therefore except from the vat.
They made a giant jaffa cake and let it go stale and proved it was a cake as it went rock hard (as all cakes do) rather than soft like biscuits do

Apologies if I misunderstood your position then.
So you are saying that you believe it could be legal to have a women's facility that included women and trans women (depending on context), but that it would have to say "women + trans women" to be lawful?

Desert or dessert 🎃?

Actually, the answers to our friend's increasingly circular posts are helping to clarify arguments/legal authorities, so not a waste.

No it would have to be fully mixed sex so it would either need to say men and women or mixed sex/unisex.
If it says women then no men even trans identifying men.
Look the haldane ruling covered all of this it states that a man with the PC of gender reassignment but no GRC is still a man and as such he has no right nor the expectation of the right to use opposite sex facilities and spaces.
This part of the ruling was accepted by everyone and it was only whether a GRC changed the meaning of sex in the equality act that the SC was deciding on and they decided that it does not.
So we have known for 4 years (haldane ruling was 2022) that men without a grc were barred from female facilities and now we have had the SC confirm that even with a GRC a trans identifying man is still a man and isn't allowed to use the female facilities.
You are flogging a dead horse you lost we won its time that you accepted your defeat and get over it its been years now and nobody cares how sad trans identifying males are anymore

No it would have to be fully mixed sex so it would either need to say men and women or mixed sex/unisex.

Well right exactly. Hence my post above:

"what I object to is a blanket rule that every facility for women must inevitably exclude trans women, regardless of context or other factors. That’s the “certainty” you want—and believe the law requires."

You are flogging a dead horse you lost we won its time that you accepted your defeat

I see you have not heeded Lord Hodge's wise counsel:

“We counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another."

Where’s the regulated pictogram for transwomen? Or for transmen? There isn’t one. Because facilities are categorised by sex.

There’s no definition of a transwoman or transmen. That would be the first hurdle that would have to be discussed by various committees then passed on to building control to be rubber-stamped.

The standard unisex pictogram PI PF 003 is regulated under BS ISO 7001 and BS 8501. It features a side-by-side, frontal view of standing male and female human figures to clearly designate shared or universal facilities.

ISO 7001 PI PF 004 Toilets - male; To indicate the location of a public toilet for males

ISO 7001 PI PF 005 Toilets - female; To indicate the location of a public toilet for females

Edited to add transmen as although some tend to focus on transwomen, both should be discussed.