Senior nurse said Sandie Peggie was ‘intolerant' of trans people, tribunal told
Ms Peggie was suspended after she complained about having to share a changing room with trans medic Dr Beth Upton at the hospital on Christmas Eve 2023.
She was placed on special leave after Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment and cited concerns about 'patient care'.
Ms Peggie has lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment; harassment related to a protected belief; indirect discrimination and victimisation.
On Friday, Ms Curran told the employment tribunal she was not aware of Ms Peggie's gender-critical views prior to the dispute, but heard rumours she had views on 'race and religion, politics' and 'intolerance to kinds of food including smells'.
Ms Curran said: 'I believe there had been a racist comment to one of our junior doctors but that hadn't been reported officially.
'I knew Sandie had quite strong beliefs about the transgender situation with Beth – that she shouldn't be sharing changing room. Sandie approached me in October to highlight the situation.
'She'd already discussed with (fellow line manager) Esther Davidson but wanted to tell me. She said 'I'm not happy with the situation with Beth changing'. She didn't feel it was right.
'I was aware she had these concerns as Esther had already advised me. I was aware Esther had spoken to our equality lead. I also stated I would check in with Esther to see if she had had further update on this and if there was any change of policy.'
The witness said she had heard a rumour that Ms Peggie had walked out of a resuscitation unit while working with Dr Upton, and advised her that 'alternative facilities existed', including two toilet cubicles which she suggested Ms Peggie use, the tribunal heard.
During an investigation, she alleged 'Sandie really doesn't have a tolerance for anybody transgender', the tribunal heard.
Ms Curran said: 'I had heard there was a conversation Sandie wasn't happy about and walked out of a cubicle, but nothing had been brought to me as a manager. It was just another member of staff saying 'I heard Sandie isn't very happy about Beth working in the department and walked out of a cubicle and wasn't very happy about the changing facilities'.'
She said that when she heard about the dispute, she knew who would have been involved, the tribunal heard.
Ms Curran said that along with manager Jamie Doyle, she looked at the equality policy, bullying and harassment policy, and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) code and made a decision to put Ms Peggie on special leave for one night, citing a possible breach of the professional code.
She said: 'It was a serious enough allegation which required investigation and Jamie said I would need to put Sandie on special leave on that shift and I would need to phone her and tell her. Just for one shift for that night.'
She added Dr Upton's line manager Dr Kate Searle told her 'the doctor could be making a complaint to the police about a hate crime', the tribunal heard.
Ms Curran recalled she phoned Ms Peggie who replied: 'Are you referring to conversation I had with Beth? I would hardly call it serious but if you don't wish me to come into work tonight that's fine.'
During cross-examination by Ms Peggie's lawyer, Naomi Cunningham, Ms Curran said: 'She was put on special leave for investigation into breach of NMC professional conduct.'
The witness was asked if Dr Upton had an obligation to raise the allegations regarding the resuscitation unit incident.
Ms Cunningham said: 'Can you agree it's an incredibly serious matter, even if no harm came to anybody. Given how serious it was, the suggestion Sandie Peggie was so bigoted she couldn't even bear to work with Dr Upton, if it's true, Dr Upton's failure to raise it with you is a shocking neglect of his duty.'
The witness said: 'I can't speak to why it wasn't brought to me or colleagues.'
Ms Cunningham said: 'If it was false it was a shockingly damaging lie for a doctor to tell about a nurse, If that had been reported to the NMC, that would have been career ending, wouldn't it?'
Ms Curran said: 'I can't comment on what the NMC would do.'
During re-examination, Jane Russell KC, representing NHS Fife, asked about her allegation that Ms Peggie had an intolerance of transgender people.
Ms Curran said: 'That to me was an intolerance to transgender, it wasn't specifically against Beth, it was just anybody.'
Ms Russell said: 'What made you think that she had an intolerance to anybody who was transgender?'
The witness said: 'She told me that she didn't agree with a male changing in female changing room.'
The tribunal continues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26auto%3Dwebp%26quality%3D75%26trim%3D230%2C118%2C268%2C135%26crop%3D&w=3840&q=100)
Scotsman
11 hours ago
- Scotsman
Sandie Peggie NHS Fife tribunal: 'Mass discrimination' legal action warning if nurse wins case over Beth Upton
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It has been one of the most contentious and high-profile employment tribunals in modern British legal history and its outcome could wield significant influence at a time when policies and guidance around gender are in a state of flux. All eyes are on the Dundee employment tribunal that has heard every blow and counter in the case brought by Sandie Peggie against NHS Fife. In legal proceedings that have made headlines around the UK, the nurse is pursuing a claim for sexual harassment, belief discrimination and victimisation against both the health board and Dr Beth Upton, a trans woman colleague at Kirkcaldy's Victoria Hospital with whom she clashed over a women's changing room. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad With the final evidence sessions concluding last week, the legal teams of those involved have until August 25 to provide any supplementary statements effectively summarising their case. The tribunal will then briefly reconvene at the start of September for two days for oral submissions alongside any legal questions. Supporters of nurse Sandie Peggie protest outside the employment tribunal hearings in Dundee. Picture: Lisa Ferguson | Lisa Ferguson Only then will the panel, helmed by employment judge Sandy Kemp, be in a position to issue a written ruling. But while many tribunal judgements are given relatively quickly after the final submissions have been made, the intricacies of this particular case mean it could be weeks, if not months, before a legally binding decision is announced. One source indicated 'the end of 2025' as a 'likely timeframe', given the panel has to consider not just the evidence from more than 15 witnesses, but thousands of pages of documentation. When the moment eventually arrives, the implications could well be far reaching. Around the UK there are a number of ongoing employment tribunals and other legal cases which span the kind of gender-critical and trans issues that have been discussed at length throughout the Peggie tribunal. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And according to gender-critical campaign and advocacy groups involved in various legal activities, there is likely to be similar employment tribunal cases in Scotland - and potentially, even a large, class-action style legal action. 'There are more employment tribunals' Susan Smith, co-founder of For Women Scotland, the gender critical group that successfully fought the Scottish Government all the way to the Supreme Court over sex-based protections, said there were other women planning legal action around such issues. She indicated there may also be cases similar to the judicial review brought to the Court of Session in April by parents in the Scottish Borders, which ultimately led to a judge ordering that Scottish state schools must provide single sex toilets for pupils. Ms Smith said: 'I know there are more employment tribunals. It's always hard to say how many, because people are at different stages of the process, but I understand there are a couple of court dates that have been set. Susan Smith, left, celebrated with colleagues and supporters of For Women Scotland after the Supreme Court ruling that the word 'woman' in the 2010 Equality Act refers to a biological woman. Picture: Lucy North/PA | PA 'There is also consideration underway about whether judicial reviews will be brought against anyone at any point for not adhering to the law. It can be a difficult process, but ultimately, we're not going anywhere. And if things aren't being done, we're keeping an eye on what we need to think about doing.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Maya Forstater, chief executive of the Sex Matters group, stressed the law on single sex spaces was 'already clear' in the wake of April's landmark Supreme Court ruling. The court decision set out the terms 'woman' and 'sex' refer only to a biological woman and biological sex in the Equality Act. But should the Dundee tribunal find in Ms Peggie's favour, Ms Forstater said it would 'help bring home to foot-dragging employers all over the country that complying is not optional'. 'Any employer that continues to flout health and safety regulations concerning toilets, changing rooms and washing facilities is putting itself at risk not only of a high-profile legal case involving a single brave claimant like Sandie, but a mass discrimination and harassment case taken jointly by large numbers of female employees,' she said. Appeal could lead to legal precedent being set As is to be expected, the extent of the repercussions of the Peggie case depends on the ruling the Dundee tribunal issues, which could be fully or partly in favour of one side or the other, and the similarity of circumstances in future cases. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Either way, the outcome will be consequential, not least because there is little in the way of existing case law around the question of workplace changing rooms. And although judgements in Scottish tribunals are not binding in England, Wales or Northern Ireland due to the separate legal jurisdictions, they can be used as persuasive arguments by the parties involved. One legal source familiar with the Peggie case said in the event the judgement goes to appeal - a process that could end up in the Supreme Court - the outcome could set a legal precedent similar to that seen in the case of Ms Forstater's High Court appeal win against an employment tribunal in 2021, which found her gender-critical beliefs fell under the Equality Act. Above all, the source said, the Peggie case would be a 'cautionary example' to public bodies 'not to play fast and loose with the law and its interpretations'. Nurse Sandie Peggie, centre, alongside Maya Forstater, left, and employment lawyer, Margaret Gribbon, outside the Scottish Parliament after a meeting with MSPs in June. Picture: PA | PA Such developments could prove important in a case such as that brought to a Newcastle tribunal by a group of nurses, who are challenging the decision by the NHS foundation trust in County Durham and Darlington to allow one of their trans colleagues to use female changing rooms. The group has filed claims at an employment tribunal on the grounds of sexual harassment, discrimination, victimisation and breaches of the right to a private life, under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case is not scheduled to be heard until October. But it has been reported the Royal College of Nursing has urged the trust to comply with statutory provisions laid down in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which require all changing rooms to be male or female-only except when they are 'single lockable rooms'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Smith said if Ms Peggie wins her case, it will become all the more important for health boards, and Scottish ministers, to ensure they are complying with existing legislation. 'The immediate implications for the NHS in Scotland will be to ensure that they have lawful policies,' she said. 'It might focus minds at health boards that they are going to have to take some responsibility for sorting things out. They can't leave these kinds of policies to graduates with no background in law or human resources, and they're going to have to review all their policies for staff and patients. 'They are responsible whether they like it or not' 'Ever since the Supreme Court ruling, we have been pushing the government on policies which we don't regard as lawful, especially around schools and prisons. Their argument a lot of the time is that these organisations, like the NHS, are arms-length and that it's not up to the government to provide guidance, even though they've done just that in the past. They are responsible whether they like it or not.' Ms Smith added: 'A lot of organisations are putting off any changes because of the false narrative that's been created, which says the ruling is not law until the statutory guidance is approved by Parliament. But that's utter rubbish - the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Unfortunately, a lot of people choose not to believe that.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sandie Peggie | Lisa Ferguson Ms Smith also suggested the intense scrutiny of NHS Fife's processes and practices may prevent other public bodies from contesting similar cases raised at employment tribunals in the future, describing it as a 'real embarrassment' for the health board. 'Even if they were to win at this stage, which I don't think is likely, I am sure it would go to appeal, and ultimately, they would lose,' she said. They have spent a vast amount of taxpayers' money on this, and it's been humiliating to hear some of the evidence, and the gossiping and bitchiness in the workplace. 'I think there'll be more cases and I think there will be more settlements. Wiser lawyers will be telling their clients that it is better for them to swallow whatever disadvantage comes from settling, because they're not going to win in the long term.' Political pressure and cost concerns The Peggie judgement will also have repercussions for NHS Fife. Already, senior figures in Scotland and elsewhere have reflected at length on the case, with many calling for changes even before a judgement is issued. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As part of cross-party condemnation of the health board, Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay is among those who have said senior managers should step down over its handling of the case, while SNP MSP Michelle Thomson has called on the members of NHS Fife's board to consider their positions. Elsewhere, Scottish Labour's Carol Mochan has said Holyrood's health committee should investigate the way in which the health board has handled the case. NHS Fife has come under extensive criticism. Picture: Fife Free Press | Fife Free Press That criticism is likely to continue, especially as the costs of defending the tribunal case mount up. NHS Fife has confirmed that as of the end of June, it had spent more than £258,000 on legal costs relating to the tribunal - a sum that includes counsel fees and services provided by NHS Scotland. But given the hearings that have taken place since then, one source suggested the total bill could reach in the region of £500,000 to £700,000 if not more. That sum would exclude any remedy made in Ms Peggie's favour should the health board lose its case. 'The costs of defending such a case, and eventually paying compensation, is likely to be enormous,' Ms Forstater said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
Times
a day ago
- Times
How attacks on Sandie Peggie's family are taking their toll
The public gallery has become populated by a familiar roll-call of faces. Every day at the Sandie Peggie tribunal, the seating area of the small room in the Dundee tribunal hearing centre is full of committed attendees. Those who are not early or quick enough are relegated to an overflow room to watch proceedings on the small screen. One face has become more recognisable than most — certainly more than she ever expected to be. Nicole Peggie, Sandie's daughter, has been forced by circumstance to defend her mother in an employment tribunal that the nurse brought against her employer NHS Fife and the transgender doctor Beth Upton. The case stems from an incident on Christmas Eve 2023, when Peggie objected to sharing a women's changing room at Victoria Hospital with Upton. This led to a heated exchange, after which Upton reported Peggie to senior management. As a result, Peggie was suspended for alleged gross misconduct.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Baillie: Urgent NHS Fife inquiry needed for Sandie Peggie
Ms Peggie is suing her employer and Dr Beth Upton after the nurse at Victoria Hospital objected to sharing a changing room with the transgender medic on Christmas Eve 2023. She was suspended on January 3, 2024, after Dr Upton submitted a complaint alleging bullying and harassment and two patient safety concerns. Ms Peggie was cleared of all four gross misconduct allegations after NHS Fife ruled there was "insufficient evidence". Speaking exclusively to The Herald, Dame Jackie said the Scottish must "end" it, adding there "absolutely" needs to be an independent investigation into the health board. She said: "I can't help but think of the 800,000 people on waiting lists across Scotland, many of whom are from Fife: the delayed discharges, the cancer waiting lists. Read more: "All of them exert the real pressures on the NHS and yet so much time of NHS Fife's senior management team has been devoted to this case." She added: "Sandra is a nurse and we should value our nurses. NHS Fife's primary responsibility is healthcare and dealing with patients, so why are they pitting staff groups against each other? "I also question the sense of NHS Fife being joint defenders in this action and I question the amount of money that's been spent on this and every day. NHS Fife are not covering themselves in glory." NHS Fife's legal costs reached £258,831 on June 30, 2025, but are likely to have soared since the tribunal resumed in July. Dame Jackie condemned the Scottish Government handling of the failed GRR legislation. (Image: Colin Mearns) In February, Dame Jackie, alongside party leader Anas Sarwar, said they would not vote for the GRR Bill "knowing what we know now". Labour MSPs were whipped to support the legislation in 2022, with Carol Mochan and Claire Baker losing their frontbench roles for opposing it. But Dame Jackie told [[The Herald]] that the party backed the legislation because the [[Scottish Government]] gave "reassurances" that all of the complexities would be discussed with the UK Government. Read more: The Scottish Government lost its Court of Session appeal against the UK Government's decision to block the legislation using a Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The court argued that the Scottish legislation would have a significant impact on equality law across the UK, particularly the Equality Act 2010. The Bill aimed to simplify the process for transgender people to obtain legal recognition of their acquired gender. It would have lowered the age for legal recognition and removed the requirement for a medical diagnosis, while also shortening the waiting time. The Scottish Labour deputy leader said: "There is no way on earth that Scottish ministers - and particularly the health minister - knew nothing about what was going to happen. I don't understand why we are still here. Some people believe it should play out, but to be frank, if I was the Scottish Government, I would have ended this. "The issue now is that Sandie Peggie won't be the only person. There will be other health boards and other public bodies. The government needs to move fast on this. It can't wait until after the election." "Practically, we need to see where there has been institutional capture and fix that," she added. "That's what the Scottish Government should do without waiting. I'm now in a place that says we should be inclusive of everybody in society but there's a way of doing it that safeguards the rights of others." Ms Baillie said she "had assurances on the record" that the Scottish Government would liaise with the UK Government. "Our fault was to believe the reassurances we'd been given that there were negotiations going on with the UK Parliament." A spokesperson for NHS Fife said: 'NHS Fife did not initiate the ongoing legal proceedings and is instead defending an action brought against it. 'While we recognise the significance of the ongoing tribunal, the Health Board has never lost sight of its core purpose, which is to provide the best possible healthcare services for the people of Fife. 'Furthermore, we remain committed to ensuring our working environments are respectful, inclusive, and supportive places for all of our staff, while fulfilling our statutory and legal obligations as an employer.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "It would be inappropriate to comment further while judicial proceedings in an Employment Tribunal are ongoing. 'This year, we are investing a record £21.7 billion in health and social care including £106 million to help health boards tackle the longest waits and deliver over 300,000 additional appointments."
