Sandie Peggie Tribunal: What Should Employers Do? 📑
Employers must be prepared for equality, diversity and inclusion disputes
Was the Sandie Peggie tribunal a landmark for trans people’s rights in the workplace?
In my previous post, I reviewed the Employment Tribunal case of Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board & Dr Beth Upton. The case centred on whether a trans woman could use the female changing room at work, and what happened when a colleague with gender-critical beliefs objected.
The Tribunal found that it was lawful for Dr Upton to use the female changing room. But it also found that the Health Board had mishandled aspects of the situation, amounting to harassment of Sandie under the Equality Act.
This case offers valuable lessons for employers. How do you handle a situation where one employee’s protected characteristic (gender reassignment) appears to conflict with another’s protected belief (gender-critical views)? What should your policy say? And how do you conduct a proper risk assessment?
The tribunal’s findings
The Tribunal set out some important principles that employers need to understand:
Trans women can lawfully use female-only spaces at work. It is “potentially but not necessarily lawful under the Act to permit a trans woman to use a female only space, such as the changing room, in the context of work.”
A “female only” sign does not mean “cis females only”. The Tribunal stated: “We did not consider that a sign on a door created any rule under the 2010 Act or otherwise that only biological women could use it.” It depends what your policy says.
Neither set of rights comes first. Both the trans person and the person with gender-critical beliefs have protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Both have equal importance. You cannot simply favour one over the other.
Gender-critical beliefs do not give carte blanche. The holder of such a belief “is subject to the same prohibitions on discrimination, victimisation and harassment under the Act as all others.” A protected belief does not entitle someone to say whatever they wish to a trans colleague.
Cis women can object, but objection alone is not enough. If a cis woman objects to a trans woman using the space, the Tribunal said this is “an entirely proper approach for her to take given her protected belief.” She should raise it with management, not confront her colleague directly. But the employer does not have to change access simply because someone objects. There has to be a good reason to exclude the trans woman. The cis woman can seek another space if she feels uncomfortable.
A passing whim is not enough. “A passing whim or disingenuous comment does not confer the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.” This addresses the “anyone could just say they’re a woman” concern.
So, how should you conduct a risk assessment?
When you need to balance competing rights, ask yourself these four questions:
What is your aim?
To provide a space for people to use the toilet and get changed if needed.
To afford all users safety, respect and dignity.
Is action necessary to achieve that aim?
Is allowing trans women to use the female space achieving the above aims for cis women and trans women?
Does making the female space only available for biological women fairly achieve the above aims for both cis women and trans women?
Does allowing trans women to use the female space mean that cis women can’t use it? Is there another space they can go if they want to?
Does allowing trans women in the female space mean that cis women will be less safe?
Does allowing trans women in the female space mean treating cis women with less respect or dignity?
Does excluding trans women from the female space mean treating trans women with less respect or dignity?
When you compare how badly people’s rights are affected with how useful the action is in reaching the goal, is the action still justified? You harm trans women by excluding them. Do you need to do this?
And what should your policy say?
The Tribunal noted that NHS Fife had no written policy regarding trans people or staff, and as of July 2025 still did not have one. Nor does NHS Scotland.
Don’t find yourself in this situation. Have a policy.
NHS Lanarkshire has a policy called “Supporting Trans Staff in the Workplace” which includes this guidance on facilities:
“The use of changing/showering facilities and toilets will be part of the discussion process with the member of staff transitioning to their affirmed gender with a view to agreeing the point at which the use of facilities should change from one gender to another.
“Should there be any objections to this by other staff, the objections will be dealt with by the manager in a sensitive and understanding way while not denying the Trans staff member access to facilities appropriate to their lived gender. It would not be acceptable to expect an individual undergoing transition to use facilities for use by the gender they were assigned at birth. It is not good practice to allocate specific facilities for the individual who is transitioning.”
Where did NHS Fife go wrong?
The Tribunal criticised several aspects of how management handled the situation:
Poor initial response: When Sandie first raised concerns, her manager should have said that if she did not accept the employer’s position, she should put her complaint in writing as a formal grievance. Instead, the matter was allowed to escalate informally.
Poor communication: The manager should have communicated more fully to the Equality Lead exactly what Sandie had said. “It might well have been better to have written it down given its importance.”
No written risk assessment: The manager did not complete a written risk assessment for the suspension. “She confused the checklist with the risk assessment.” A risk assessment process may have been undertaken, but it was not properly documented.
Slow investigation: NHS Fife took too long to investigate Dr Upton’s complaints about Sandie’s behaviour.
Mixing issues: NHS Fife raised concerns about Sandie’s nursing care within this case when it should have been dealt with separately.
Gagging: The Board told Sandie not to discuss the case when she should have been allowed to.
Failure to separate: The Board said they would sort out the rota so Sandie and Beth were not working at the same time, but the Tribunal felt they should have temporarily asked Beth not to use the female changing room while the rotas were being changed.
Your checklist
To avoid finding yourself in this situation:
Have a policy. Make sure it covers trans staff and access to facilities.
Carry out an equality impact assessment before issues arise.
Document everything in writing. Verbal conversations are not enough.
If you are going to favour one view over another, make sure you do a risk assessment and can justify your decision.
Direct staff to formal processes. If someone raises a concern informally, tell them to put it in writing as a grievance.
Keep issues separate. Do not mix unrelated performance concerns into a discrimination or harassment investigation.
Act promptly. Delays in investigation can themselves amount to harassment.
My Response
This case is a wake-up call for employers. The law is clear: trans women can use female-only spaces at work, there is no law to say they can’t. But many employers have no policy, no guidance, and no idea how to handle a situation when it arises.
The result is that situations then escalate and staff are unsure of their rights and it ends up in an Employment Tribunal.
It does not have to be this way. Get your policy in place now. Train your managers. Do refresher courses. And when issues arise, deal with them formally, promptly, and with proper documentation.
I have no doubt that all humans have the right to live as themselves, to live authentically, and to work without being abused or hurt. Good policies and good management can help achieve this.
Over to You
Does your employer have a policy on trans inclusion? Have you seen good (or bad) examples of how these situations have been handled? I’d love to hear your experiences. Please share them in the comments below.
This is Part 2 of my review of Peggie v Fife Health Board & Dr Beth Upton. Read Part 1 here.
This is part of a series examining cases, commentary and hearings concerning gender identity. If you have a case or article you’d like me to review, get in touch.