Page 19 | Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #68

nauticant · 2026-10-04T12:02:59+00:00

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 [[https://x.com/tribunaltweets. www.x.com/tribunaltweets.]] Tribunal Tweets are likely to be providing coverage in future proceedings. There's additional information on Tribunal Tweets' substack: [[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/ www.tribunaltweets.substack.com/]]. Links to previous threads #1 to #60 can be found in this thread: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards]] Thread 61: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5472628-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-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: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5562302-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-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: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5581909-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-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: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-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: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583663-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-65 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583663-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-65]][[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64 ]]29 September 2026 to 30 September 2026 Thread 66: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584074-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-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: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584523-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-67?page=16 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584523-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-67]] 1 October 2026 to ????

Keeptoiletssafe · 19/10/2026 17:45

And of course the only design that would be permitted for both sexes is a unisex/universal design so it’s all a bit of a pointless exercise.

borntobequiet · 19/10/2026 17:46

I find pumpkin pie rather bland. I’d be happy for it to identify as a different sort of pie entirely.

MyThreeWords · 19/10/2026 17:47

I think agreeing to differ is the best strategy for this thread. No one is going to convince an opponent of anything in this groundhog day.

I would find it hard to leave a thread alone if people continued to talk about me on the thread.

KeepupKardigans · 19/10/2026 18:09

Hoardasurass · 19/10/2026 17:00

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

Show quote history

So are cakes male and biscuits female by their presentation?

NoWordForFluffy · 19/10/2026 18:59

GriseldaandMike · 19/10/2026 16:27

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.

Show quote history

To confuse things, there is no written law for murder, it's a common law offence. So how do we dealing with that in L-World?! 😬

GriseldaandMike · 19/10/2026 19:44

NoWordForFluffy · 19/10/2026 18:59

To confuse things, there is no written law for murder, it's a common law offence. So how do we dealing with that in L-World?! 😬

Show quote history

Well now someone who was looking for funding to bring a court case will be able to earn themself a fortune as the greatest ever defence lawyer. In every single murder trial they can ask to see the law that says murder is illegal then move for a dismissal. Bang, case closed on to the next one. I'm a little surprised no one has thought of it before.

borntobequiet · 19/10/2026 19:57

NoWordForFluffy · 19/10/2026 18:59

To confuse things, there is no written law for murder, it's a common law offence. So how do we dealing with that in L-World?! 😬

Show quote history

See, that’s so interesting. Almost worth the derail.

prh47bridge · 19/10/2026 20:36

Lacksie · 19/10/2026 17:01

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?

Edited

Show quote history

This is going to be a longer post!

The EHRC Code of Practice covers some facilities such as toilets and changing rooms and compliance is effectively compulsory. It requires service providers to provide separate services for men and women based on biological sex, and also mixed sex facilities for those who do not wish to use the single sex ones (this is a simplification, but it will do for the present purposes). All the facilities must be clearly labelled so that service users know which one they are supposed to use. You could, in theory, have a mixed sex facility labelled "women + trans women" and another labelled "men + trans men", although you might in this situation need to think about whether anyone wasn't covered (e.g. individuals identifying as non-binary). This might appear to give any biological man refused entry to the "women + trans women" facility a case for discrimination but, as Swift says, the question is not whether they are treated differently, it is whether they are being treated less favourably. If the facilities are all of a similar standard and cover everyone equally any claim is unlikely to succeed, but it is highly fact dependent. Having said that, I think most service providers would opt for a single mixed sex facility open to all on the grounds of economy and to avoid any possibility of discrimination claims, which cost time and money even if you win.

With other facilities, a service provider could choose to provide a service for women + trans women provided they are clear that this is who it is for. However, there would be risks in doing so. The service would not be single sex, so would not be protected by the derogations in Schedule 3 of the Equality Act. They could therefore face claims of discrimination from men who are refused entry, and potentially also from gender critical women who want to access the facility but feel they are unable to do so because of the presence of trans-identifying males. If the service provider also provides facilities for these people of a similar standard any claim is unlikely to succeed, but it is highly fact-dependent. Note that the discrimination against men is clearly direct discrimination, so cannot be legally justified - there must be some provision of similar standard for men. Regarding discrimination against gender critical women, the question is whether the courts would regard this as direct or indirect discrimination. If it is direct it cannot be justified, but if it is indirect the service provider may be able to justify it if they can show that it is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.

The mention of facilities of a similar standard reminds me that, every time I go to the theatre I wonder if the women have a case against the theatre for discrimination as there is always a long queue for the women's facilities, whereas queues for the men's facilities are short or non-existent. However, that isn't relevant to this discussion!

So, in summary, I don't think labelling a space as "women + trans women" is inherently unlawful, but it is highly fact dependent and something I would be very cautious about.

Lacksie · 19/10/2026 20:40

NoWordForFluffy · 19/10/2026 18:59

To confuse things, there is no written law for murder, it's a common law offence. So how do we dealing with that in L-World?! 😬

Show quote history

Eh? murder is established through centuries of case law. I haven’t disputed that case law establishes legal rules. The problem is that you haven’t identified any case law establishing your theories about lawful signage and mandatory exclusion. That’s the issue.

Lacksie · 19/10/2026 20:50

prh47bridge · 19/10/2026 20:36

This is going to be a longer post!

The EHRC Code of Practice covers some facilities such as toilets and changing rooms and compliance is effectively compulsory. It requires service providers to provide separate services for men and women based on biological sex, and also mixed sex facilities for those who do not wish to use the single sex ones (this is a simplification, but it will do for the present purposes). All the facilities must be clearly labelled so that service users know which one they are supposed to use. You could, in theory, have a mixed sex facility labelled "women + trans women" and another labelled "men + trans men", although you might in this situation need to think about whether anyone wasn't covered (e.g. individuals identifying as non-binary). This might appear to give any biological man refused entry to the "women + trans women" facility a case for discrimination but, as Swift says, the question is not whether they are treated differently, it is whether they are being treated less favourably. If the facilities are all of a similar standard and cover everyone equally any claim is unlikely to succeed, but it is highly fact dependent. Having said that, I think most service providers would opt for a single mixed sex facility open to all on the grounds of economy and to avoid any possibility of discrimination claims, which cost time and money even if you win.

With other facilities, a service provider could choose to provide a service for women + trans women provided they are clear that this is who it is for. However, there would be risks in doing so. The service would not be single sex, so would not be protected by the derogations in Schedule 3 of the Equality Act. They could therefore face claims of discrimination from men who are refused entry, and potentially also from gender critical women who want to access the facility but feel they are unable to do so because of the presence of trans-identifying males. If the service provider also provides facilities for these people of a similar standard any claim is unlikely to succeed, but it is highly fact-dependent. Note that the discrimination against men is clearly direct discrimination, so cannot be legally justified - there must be some provision of similar standard for men. Regarding discrimination against gender critical women, the question is whether the courts would regard this as direct or indirect discrimination. If it is direct it cannot be justified, but if it is indirect the service provider may be able to justify it if they can show that it is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.

The mention of facilities of a similar standard reminds me that, every time I go to the theatre I wonder if the women have a case against the theatre for discrimination as there is always a long queue for the women's facilities, whereas queues for the men's facilities are short or non-existent. However, that isn't relevant to this discussion!

So, in summary, I don't think labelling a space as "women + trans women" is inherently unlawful, but it is highly fact dependent and something I would be very cautious about.

Show quote history

So you accept that provision for women and trans women is not inherently unlawful, that different facilities need not mean less favourable treatment, and that the circumstances matter. That’s encouraging, at least. The remaining disagreement therefore I suppose is about whether there are universal legal rules prescribing the specific words providers must always use to communicate who their services are for, regardless of context—not whether trans-inclusive provision is necessarily unlawful.

Keeptoiletssafe · 19/10/2026 21:48

prh47bridge · 19/10/2026 20:36

This is going to be a longer post!

The EHRC Code of Practice covers some facilities such as toilets and changing rooms and compliance is effectively compulsory. It requires service providers to provide separate services for men and women based on biological sex, and also mixed sex facilities for those who do not wish to use the single sex ones (this is a simplification, but it will do for the present purposes). All the facilities must be clearly labelled so that service users know which one they are supposed to use. You could, in theory, have a mixed sex facility labelled "women + trans women" and another labelled "men + trans men", although you might in this situation need to think about whether anyone wasn't covered (e.g. individuals identifying as non-binary). This might appear to give any biological man refused entry to the "women + trans women" facility a case for discrimination but, as Swift says, the question is not whether they are treated differently, it is whether they are being treated less favourably. If the facilities are all of a similar standard and cover everyone equally any claim is unlikely to succeed, but it is highly fact dependent. Having said that, I think most service providers would opt for a single mixed sex facility open to all on the grounds of economy and to avoid any possibility of discrimination claims, which cost time and money even if you win.

With other facilities, a service provider could choose to provide a service for women + trans women provided they are clear that this is who it is for. However, there would be risks in doing so. The service would not be single sex, so would not be protected by the derogations in Schedule 3 of the Equality Act. They could therefore face claims of discrimination from men who are refused entry, and potentially also from gender critical women who want to access the facility but feel they are unable to do so because of the presence of trans-identifying males. If the service provider also provides facilities for these people of a similar standard any claim is unlikely to succeed, but it is highly fact-dependent. Note that the discrimination against men is clearly direct discrimination, so cannot be legally justified - there must be some provision of similar standard for men. Regarding discrimination against gender critical women, the question is whether the courts would regard this as direct or indirect discrimination. If it is direct it cannot be justified, but if it is indirect the service provider may be able to justify it if they can show that it is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.

The mention of facilities of a similar standard reminds me that, every time I go to the theatre I wonder if the women have a case against the theatre for discrimination as there is always a long queue for the women's facilities, whereas queues for the men's facilities are short or non-existent. However, that isn't relevant to this discussion!

So, in summary, I don't think labelling a space as "women + trans women" is inherently unlawful, but it is highly fact dependent and something I would be very cautious about.

Show quote history

Toilet provision is still discriminatory towards women. Calculations are used to determine equality in provision but many venues haven’t caught up. Urinals are very useful as they free up space for women’s toilets.

I think incorrectly labelling a universal toilet (because that’s the design it would have to be) as transwomen and women is discrimination against men and women. It takes away provision from one group or another. Single sex provision has to be satisfied first. Then you can have universal provision which is inclusive of both sexes. There needs to be lots of excess provision before a universal toilet isn’t letting a section of the public in and in any case, a universal toilet is not permitted to be used like this. In all purposes it is still a universal toilet room for both sexes. The pictogram will be the same pictogram if it abides with current regulations. It’s nonsense building control wise, economically, and for health and safety because universal designs are worse.

edit to add: calculate for 25% extra toilets if they are universal in design as people spend longer in them washing (hopefully) and drying their hands.

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

BezMark · 20/10/2026 06:53

WearyAuldWumman · 19/10/2026 16:25

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

Show quote history

Ye'd be as weel askin ma mere's loopit dug as him, nae lee.

anyolddinosaur · 20/10/2026 07:31

@nauticant I'm sure I wont be the only one who will be returning to these threads when there is actually something worth reading. The case against the conspirators is going to be fascinating and everyone will be too busy then to reply to the perpetually deluded. Would have been amusing if it had been scheduled to start on guy fawkes night though.

Shortshriftandlethal · 20/10/2026 10:11

Lacksie · 19/10/2026 17:01

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?

Edited

Show quote history

If you want to include men with trans identities then it would simply be labelled 'Mixed Sex' or 'Open to All'.

Trying to shoe-horn some men into the female category is just an exercise in political dogmatism: one that cannot accept reality.

Shortshriftandlethal · 20/10/2026 10:18

Lacksie · 19/10/2026 20:50

So you accept that provision for women and trans women is not inherently unlawful, that different facilities need not mean less favourable treatment, and that the circumstances matter. That’s encouraging, at least. The remaining disagreement therefore I suppose is about whether there are universal legal rules prescribing the specific words providers must always use to communicate who their services are for, regardless of context—not whether trans-inclusive provision is necessarily unlawful.

Show quote history

I'm sorry, but you lost the linguistic battle too. In law the word 'woman' retains its biological interpretation. Most service providers do not have the time or energy for parlour games involving double meanings. Their best interests, and the best interests of the vast majority of their users, are best served by clarity, not by make believe.

BlueLegume · 20/10/2026 12:25

Good news! Wasn’t sure where to put this but here seems appropriate.

The Darlington Nurses/ BH have just posted that the Progress flag has been removed from the RCN headquarters.

KittyWilkinson · 20/10/2026 12:27

BlueLegume · 20/10/2026 12:25

Good news! Wasn’t sure where to put this but here seems appropriate.

The Darlington Nurses/ BH have just posted that the Progress flag has been removed from the RCN headquarters.

Oh my goodness! What a shocker!

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 20/10/2026 12:30

BlueLegume · 20/10/2026 12:25

Good news! Wasn’t sure where to put this but here seems appropriate.

The Darlington Nurses/ BH have just posted that the Progress flag has been removed from the RCN headquarters.

Any news on new merchandise for their online shop?

Looks like the progress pride badges have been reduced to a pound

MyAmpleSheep · 20/10/2026 12:51

BlueLegume · 20/10/2026 12:25

Good news! Wasn’t sure where to put this but here seems appropriate.

The Darlington Nurses/ BH have just posted that the Progress flag has been removed from the RCN headquarters.

In a press release the RCN didn’t say (but might as well have) that the lowering was scheduled for today when the flag schedule was written in 1966 and the flag will be replaced on the pole after maintenance and at an appropriate time. Today’s action had nothing to do with any tribunal, of which the flag team were unaware.

Tears0fTheMushroom · 20/10/2026 13:00

NoWordForFluffy · 19/10/2026 13:23

Nobody has the confidence of a non-legally trained person with 'legal' knowledge either from AI or dubious sources Stonewall / GLP etc arguing with a solicitor of many years' standing. It's an interesting study in arrogance, that's for sure.

Remind you of anyone?
I know I've heard these arguments before on another platform.
Amateur lawyers (flying or otherwise) abound on X.

Tears0fTheMushroom · 20/10/2026 13:01

MyAmpleSheep · 20/10/2026 12:51

In a press release the RCN didn’t say (but might as well have) that the lowering was scheduled for today when the flag schedule was written in 1966 and the flag will be replaced on the pole after maintenance and at an appropriate time. Today’s action had nothing to do with any tribunal, of which the flag team were unaware.

Show quote history

Well I believe them of course. Pure coincidence. 🙄

Wishesandhorses · 20/10/2026 13:10

borntobequiet · 19/10/2026 17:46

I find pumpkin pie rather bland. I’d be happy for it to identify as a different sort of pie entirely.

Ah, the secret there is to identify as the recipes being hatefully spice-phobic, and going absolutely nuts with the ground cloves and cinnamon. Nuts. Truly bonkers. Pumpkin pie spice needs administering in buckets rather than teaspoons.

KeepupKardigans · 20/10/2026 13:31

Wishesandhorses · 20/10/2026 13:10

Ah, the secret there is to identify as the recipes being hatefully spice-phobic, and going absolutely nuts with the ground cloves and cinnamon. Nuts. Truly bonkers. Pumpkin pie spice needs administering in buckets rather than teaspoons.

Show quote history

Probably needs a slug of ginger whine

Cismyfatarse · 20/10/2026 14:42

Speaking of identifying, I saw the most hilarious BTL comment on a trans / JKR article.

You can pour water on a toaster but it doesn’t make it a kettle.

Sorry. Keeps making me snigger.

Igmum · 22/10/2026 12:52

I too have reported Lacksie. I think there is a world of difference between tangents in the discussion and someone who comes onto multiple threads in order to disrupt. I take great pleasure in Mumsnet FWR threads, their intelligence, knowledge, insights, solidarity and humour. I love being distracted by Tunnocks, songs, gerbil art and cake. I take no pleasure in seeing an intruder barging in over and over again with no intention of disagreeing sensibly and seeking only to spoil everything about the thread by being unpleasant and obtuse.