The Independent, on UK Politics, 4 November 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Sandie Peggie to appeal against employment tribunal ruling on case against union

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.1 finding

Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today. Join today Already a member? Log in Sandie Peggie is to appeal against an employment tribunal ruling that a nursing union did not discriminate against her because of her beliefs about gender, her legal team has said. The Fife nurse brought the legal case against the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) over what she claimed was direct discrimination over .

Ms Peggie had accused the union of failing to adequately support her during a dispute with her employer. She had previously brought a case against NHS Fife after sharing a changing room with transgender medic Dr Beth Upton at Kirkcaldy’s Victoria Hospital in December 2023. The first employment tribunal awarded Ms Peggie a partial victory against the health board in December last year, upholding claims of harassment against her employer, but dismissing allegations of discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation.

Ms Peggie’s case against the RCN was heard at an employment tribunal in Dundee in September and October. In a 37-page judgment issued on Monday, employment judge Sangster said: “The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination do not succeed and are dismissed.” On Wednesday, Ms Peggie’s legal team said that following advice from them she has instructed them to appeal against the employment tribunal’s judgment.

The team said that work on the appeal is progressing and that the notice of appeal is expected to be submitted to the Employment Appeal Tribunal within the coming week. In a statement, the legal team said: “Sandie remains deeply grateful to all those who gave evidence on her behalf, as well as to the many individuals and organisations who have supported her throughout these proceedings. “Given that the appeal process will shortly be under way, no further comment will be made at this stage.”

Ms Peggie had accused the union of failing to advise her properly when she first raised the issue of having to share a changing room with Dr Upton with one of its officers. She claimed the RCN had refused her request for legal assistance in relation to her claims against NHS Fife. She also accused the union of failing to seek full assurances from NHS Fife in relation to its policies on single-sex spaces. However, in her judgment judge Sangster dismissed all three of Ms Peggie’s claims against the union, saying its actions towards her had not been influenced by her protected belief.

She said: “The Tribunal concluded that the complaints of direct discrimination, to the extent that they were framed as being because of an asserted belief of the respondent, could not succeed.”

Read the original article on independent.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (1)

The Independent reports that Sandie Peggie will appeal a tribunal ruling that the Royal College of Nursing did not discriminate against her. It attributes her claims to her, quotes the judgment directly and states the outcome clearly. Its one lapse is minor: it calls her beliefs "sex-realist", a campaigning term from one side of the dispute, where elsewhere it calls them beliefs about gender.

  1. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “her sex-realist beliefs”

    Why this matters
    The words "sex-realist beliefs" take a label used by one side of the dispute and place it in the outlet's sentence as the description of her beliefs.
    The impression it gives
    A reader may take it that her view is simply the realistic one, so the opposing view is implicitly unreal.
    The context
    The tribunal and the outlet elsewhere describe her views neutrally, as beliefs about gender and a protected belief. "Sex-realist" is a campaigning term, not the tribunal's description. The surrounding "what she claimed" attributes the discrimination claim, but it leaves the label itself loosely attributed.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“because of her beliefs about gender”
    • Elsewhere in the article“had not been influenced by her protected belief”

    Show it in the article

What it gets right

  • “judge Sangster dismissed all three of Ms Peggie’s claims against the union, saying its actions towards her had not been influenced by her protected belief”

    The Independent states the tribunal's finding plainly after setting out each of her claims, so the reader knows the claims were tested and rejected.

  • “her legal team has said”

    The appeal is attributed to the source that announced it rather than stated as the outlet's own fact.

  • “"The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination do not succeed and are dismissed."”

    The outlet quotes the judgment directly instead of paraphrasing the ruling.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Independent

  1. 4 NovParliament risks managed decline without ‘best case scenario’ renovation: MPs3.0
  2. 4 NovSlavery apology will not bring cost for UK taxpayers, Miliband insists0.0
  3. 4 NovUK taxpayers will not pay penny more for new approach to Commonwealth – Miliband0.0
  4. 4 NovParliament risks managed decline without ‘best case scenario’ renovation: MPs3.0
  5. 4 NovSurvey reveals what some eligible households plan to use £100 energy payment for0.0

Everything we scored from The Independent