It found the health board harassed Ms Peggie on four accounts but her other claims including victimisation and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed, as were all claims against transgender colleague Dr Beth Upton.
Ms Peggie was suspended as an A&E nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy after she complained about sharing a changing room with transgender medic Dr Upton on Christmas Eve 2023.
The judgment remains the same, however aspects of the documents have been amended amid concerns false quotes were used throughout the judgment.
The lengthy document makes reference to a separate 2021 case by gender campaigner Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters against the Centre for Global Development Europe.
Employment judge Sandy Kemp referenced the Equality Act 2010 and the Supreme Court ruling in his judgment, writing: “There are different protected characteristics under the act but there is nothing stated specifically within the act itself, or the court’s decision, that one protected characteristic takes precedence over any other.
“In Forstater v CDG Europe and others UKEAT/0105/20 the Employment Appeal Tribunal had emphasised that: ‘It is important to bear in mind that the [Equality Act 2010] does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics’.”
Read more:
Ms Forstater told The Courier: I know that judgment inside out, and I thought those words are not there.”
She added: Ms Forstater – the chief executive of Sex Matters, the gender-critical charity backing Ms Peggie – added: “It’s just not clear where it came from at all.
“I couldn’t find that quote anywhere.”
Ms Peggie had a narrow victory when the tribunal judgment was published on Monday, with the health board found to have harassed the nurse on four accounts, including by failing to revoke Dr Upton’s use of the female changing rooms until alternative rotas were arranged.
However, her claims of victimisation and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 failed, as did all claims against Dr Upton.
In a certificate of correction issued by the Judicial Office, Employment Judge Sandy Kemp “corrects the clerical mistake(s), error(s) or omission(s) in the judgment”.
It deleted the paragraph quoted in this article to: “This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.”
It added: “We consider that quotation provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics.”
The Herald revealed on Thursday that the total costs accumulated by NHS Fife in defending the case now exceed £400,000.
Ms Peggie’s legal team warned of “hugely problematic” aspects of the judgment and have under a fortnight to ask Employment Judge Sandy Kempt to ‘reconsider’ the judgment and 42 days to appeal, meaning tribunal costs could soar further.
Scottish Conservative shadow equalities minister Tess White MSP said: “It’s extremely concerning that the Sandie Peggie judgment included a quote that appears to have been completely fabricated.
“An urgent explanation of how this was allowed to happen is now essential.
“The letter of the law is clear – women, that means biological women, are entitled to single-sex spaces.
“But this tribunal has delivered a confusing judgment that will only further erode women’s faith that their legal rights and protections will be upheld in the workplace.”
In a statement Ms Forstater said: “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.
“Claimants and witnesses going to court swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and we expect nothing less from the judges.
“There are several errors in the judgment beyond the made-up quote attributed to my judgment. There is a partial quote from the Supreme Court’s judgment in the For Women Scotland case that has been edited so that its meaning is completely reversed. Mistakes like this severely undermine people’s confidence in the legal process.
“This judgment was already being questioned because it seems to fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s clear statement that single-sex facilities can only be on the basis of sex, not claimed identity. Errors like this just add to the growing feeling that this is not a sound judgment.”