**Nurse Acquitted of Misconduct After Complaining About Transgender Colleague in NHS Locker Room**
A nurse who was suspended after expressing concerns about sharing a women’s changing room with a transgender doctor has been fully cleared of gross misconduct, her solicitor has revealed. The decision came just hours prior to the resumption of her high-profile employment tribunal in Dundee.
Sandie Peggie, a nurse based at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, faced suspension on 3 January 2024 after raising objections to sharing changing facilities with Dr Beth Upton, a transgender doctor. The situation escalated when Dr Upton lodged a complaint against Ms Peggie, alleging bullying, harassment, and raising issues about patient care.
Following Dr Upton’s complaint, Ms Peggie’s suspension was formalised, and subsequently, in March, she was formally notified of various safety and conduct allegations. According to evidence provided at the tribunal earlier this year, these events prompted Ms Peggie to pursue legal action against both her employer—the local NHS health board—and Dr Upton, citing sexual harassment and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
Her complaint centred around three separate incidents involving shared use of the changing room. In legal terms, her case referenced indirect harassment, victimisation, and whistleblowing, all associated with what Ms Peggie described as a protected belief.
Tribunal proceedings began in February but were later adjourned. Ahead of the scheduled restart, Ms Peggie’s solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, confirmed the nurse had faced a separate internal disciplinary hearing. This hearing, which took place on 25 June, examined four allegations of gross misconduct: two concerning alleged failures in patient care, one incident of “misgendering” Dr Upton, and the disputed altercation in the female-only changing room that took place on Christmas Eve 2023.
Ms Gribbon stated, “On the evening before the tribunal was set to resume, Sandie Peggie received written confirmation from the Fife Health Board that after careful consideration and a full disciplinary hearing, none of the gross misconduct allegations against her would be upheld. Sandie is relieved and delighted that this lengthy 18-month internal investigation has concluded with her being exonerated of all charges.”
The health board also released a statement to clarify its stance: “NHS Fife can confirm that an internal conduct hearing concluded this matter in line with NHS Scotland policy. The hearing accounted for allegations regarding colleague interactions and standards of patient care. Upon reviewing all evidence, from written reports to witness accounts, the panel concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate misconduct. Although no formal disciplinary action was taken, the panel did recommend a facilitated reflective practice discussion.”
NHS Fife added that the case was “complex and sensitive,” underscoring the organisation’s ongoing commitment to cultivating a respectful and inclusive environment for both staff and patients. The board noted it would provide no further commentary, citing employee privacy.
The resumption of the employment tribunal comes against the backdrop of a significant legal decision. In April, the UK Supreme Court clarified that the Equality Act 2010’s terms “woman” and “sex” refer explicitly to biological definitions. This ruling has reportedly been welcomed by Ms Peggie and has added another dimension to the ongoing debate surrounding rights and protections in NHS workplaces.
The tribunal, expected to last 11 days, resumes with public and professional interest focussed sharply on the wider implications for inclusive practices and workplace policies throughout the NHS.
Additionally, it has come to light that the Fife Health Board has allocated over £220,000 to legal costs associated with the tribunal. This figure was disclosed after an inquiry by Scotland’s information commissioner, underscoring both the financial and procedural ramifications when employment disputes arise in public-sector health organisations.
As the proceedings continue, the case serves as a pointed reminder of the complex, often highly personal, challenges faced by modern healthcare institutions as they navigate questions of inclusivity, workers’ rights, and patient care in an era of evolving social expectations.