Sandie Peggie, a veteran nurse with three decades of service in the National Health Service, has vowed to press on with her legal battle against NHS Fife after a contentious employment tribunal ruling that has ignited debate across Scotland and the UK. The dispute, which centers on the rights of women in single-sex spaces versus the rights of transgender individuals, has grown only more heated following revelations that the tribunal’s lengthy judgment included not just one but two fabricated quotes.
The saga began on Christmas Eve 2023 at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, when Ms Peggie confronted Dr Beth Upton, a transgender woman and biological male, about using the female staff changing room. Uncomfortable with the arrangement, Peggie raised her concerns with hospital management. What followed was a suspension from her role in the A&E department and a drawn-out disciplinary investigation, according to BBC News.
In response, Peggie filed a legal complaint, alleging harassment, discrimination, and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. The case, which played out over several weeks in Dundee, quickly became a flashpoint for the broader national conversation about gender identity, women’s rights, and workplace policy.
Earlier this week, the tribunal issued its 312-page judgment, finding in Peggie’s favor on four counts of harassment against NHS Fife. However, the panel dismissed her other claims, including those against Dr Upton. The judgment concluded that some of Peggie’s own comments toward Dr Upton amounted to harassment and breached the health board’s bullying and harassment policy. The tribunal struck a nuanced note, referencing a Supreme Court ruling that defines a woman by biological sex under equalities law, but stopped short of declaring it inherently lawful or unlawful for a trans woman to use a female changing room. Instead, it recommended that employers weigh a range of factors, such as the extent of a person’s transition and the concerns of other staff, before making such determinations.
Speaking publicly for the first time since the verdict, Peggie told supporters in Dundee, “I am not a campaigner and had never heard of the phrase ‘gender critical’ when I first raised complaints over two years ago about my employer’s decision to allow men into female only changing rooms. I just knew instinctively that it wasn’t right that women were expected to undress in front of men in private spaces, and I still believe this to be the case.” She added, “Whilst I am delighted that the tribunal was critical of Fife Health Board and found they harassed me, their judgement I believe falls short in many respects and that is why I certainly won’t be giving up this legal fight any time soon.”
Peggie’s solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, echoed her client’s concerns, describing parts of the tribunal’s findings as “problematic.” Gribbon argued that the judgment unfairly places the burden on female employees to speak up if they feel uncomfortable sharing single-sex spaces with men, which, she said, ignores the realities of workplace dynamics. “When Sandie objected, she was suspended, subjected to an unreasonably lengthy disciplinary investigation and falsely accused of patient care concerns. It then emerged during the hearing that FHB then embarked on an archaeological dig to find material to discredit her,” Gribbon said, as reported by BBC News. She confirmed that preparations were underway to appeal the ruling, with a formal submission expected to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in early January 2026.
The controversy escalated further when it was revealed that the tribunal’s judgment included an inaccurate quote attributed to Maya Forstater, a prominent gender-critical campaigner and chief executive of the group Sex Matters, who has publicly supported Peggie’s case. The judgment had cited Forstater’s own landmark employment tribunal, claiming it emphasized that the Equality Act does not create “a hierarchy of protected characteristics.” Forstater quickly took to social media to dispute the attribution, posting, “This ‘quote’ from my judgement doesn’t come from my judgement. It is completely made up.”
After complaints from Forstater and Peggie’s supporters, the tribunal issued a “certificate of correction” on December 11, 2025, acknowledging “clerical mistake(s), error(s) or omission(s).” The correction did not alter the overall verdict, but a new, accurate quote from the Forstater case was inserted into the judgment. Forstater, however, was not appeased. “I knew this was wrong, and it’s good it’s being amended, but I am astonished that it happened and I would like an explanation of how it happened. There are several errors in the judgment beyond the made-up quote attributed to my judgment. Mistakes like this severely undermine people’s confidence in the legal process,” she said, according to the Daily Mail.
To complicate matters, a second fabricated quote was later discovered in the tribunal’s judgment, again related to the legal interpretation of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal maintained that the corrected passage still supported the proposition that the Act does not establish a hierarchy of protected characteristics, but the presence of multiple errors has fueled skepticism about the tribunal’s reliability and impartiality. The Judicial Office has declined to comment further on the issue, as reported by GB News.
Legal analysts have weighed in on the case, with employment lawyer Peter Daly describing the judgment as “irredeemably flawed” but noting that Peggie’s partial victory could have broader significance. “Firstly, she was successful on her central claim. Secondly, the nature of the judgment gives the appellate courts an opportunity to set down binding authority on as wide a range of interpretations as could have been hoped,” Daly told the Daily Mail. The judgment’s recommendation that employers consider the extent of a trans person’s transition, their appearance, and whether other staff have complained, underscores the complexity and sensitivity of managing single-sex spaces in the modern workplace.
NHS Fife, for its part, acknowledged Peggie’s right to appeal and reiterated its commitment to following the employment tribunal process. Meanwhile, the tribunal has scheduled a separate remedy hearing to determine what compensation, if any, Peggie will receive.
The case has become a lightning rod for campaigners on both sides of the gender debate. Supporters of Peggie argue that women’s rights to privacy and safety in single-sex spaces are being eroded, while advocates for transgender rights insist that inclusive policies are vital for equality and dignity in the workplace. The involvement of high-profile campaigners like Forstater and the ongoing corrections to the tribunal’s judgment have only heightened the stakes.
As the legal battle continues, many are watching closely to see whether the appeal will clarify the responsibilities of employers and the rights of staff in similar situations. For now, Sandie Peggie remains resolute, her fight emblematic of the broader societal struggle to balance competing rights in a changing world.
