Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is the fourth afternoon session of submissions in Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife and Dr Upton.

JR Agreed fact DU had permission to use F CR.
C submission - she says obligation to carry out Impact assessment. Failure to do that isn't actionable in this tribunal.
C Complains not consideration of advice to others. But aligns - KS/IB/Code of practice - IB said could have

confidence UK Eq body has balanced different needs.
C asserts board were aware she had raised concerns. But IB evidence was that she had only been told that a t member of staff was going and she was asked to accommodate them re CR - wasn't told whether TM or TW.

IB was consistent with leadership role [ref Hale judgement on school dress code] may upset those with religious belief but may also provide equality opportunity for girls. Public sector should make space for equality opportunities - that's the point of diversity.

JR Moving on to interactions SP/DU. No complaint about anything DU said or did - no conduct of sexual nature or conduct relevant to C's sex.
C doesn't complain c conduct related to her sex but c DU gender reassignment. Not related in statutory sense.
August incidents:

Only agreed fact is the DU in CR when C entered. Wasn't put to DU that DU was changing with C entered.

Next incident - C says was in bra and trousers. that wasn't put to DU.

First 2 incidents - C admitted they didn't constitute hostile environment

Xmas Eve - C characterisation of agreed facts is not correct. I have set out what they were.

DU said she got changed before went to toilet and has maintained this. She also said she took her clothes from locker not rucksack as C suggests. C suggestion that DU changed

in front of her is implausible. DU talks c shyness. Investigator, AG, found it unlikely someone would make themselves more vulnerable.

C says DU account is wrong: cos DU did Merry Xmas tour which meant arrived later. Incorrect. DU told in evidence that had arrived with others

C said would have been rude if ignored DU and not the others. True, but C ignoring Du consistent with way she treated DU.

C said DU didn't leave CR cos not changed. No - reason she didn't leave is cos didn't want to be accused of not listening.

C purpose in initiating exchange. Why choose, when two of them alone. What benign outcome C hope to achieve confronting this young dr at start of her career in CR at midnight. Why did C choose to do this? Why depart from previous practice of leaving CR when DU there

AG perspective said C wanted to have it out with DU. But however worded, C decided to do this - Underhill in Higgs describes this as inappropriate. C hasn't addressed until this morning

J Explained that. Not on list
JR It doesn't need to be. cf Walker

C inappropriately manifested her belief and so is deprived of protection. Higgs not done when this case was happening
J Is it in your submission
JR not in list of issues. Doesn't have to be.
J Case law. Would have to amend submissions.

JR Things said to DU in exchange. Calling TW a man is disrespectful , contrary to FWS and Forstater.
Asking c chromosome- eg of causing gratuitous harm. In her sub, NC said it was proxy for asking c genitals. But objectionable and inappropriate. DU sure this was said.

C said didn't remember, but agreed would have been inappropriate if she had said it.
Last but not least prisons comment. C not quite right c extent common ground on this. It's not just that C said it's just like that person in the prison but ref to the Isla Bryson case

Bryson is well-known convicted rapist, so it's clear and obvious that ref to Bryson is complicit comparison. That is the unvarnished, unstretched position. There's nothing dangerous or unsafe c DU and likening her to so who have committed heinous crime is damaging slur

inappropriate and objectionable manifestation of her belief. DU distress recorded in contemporaneous phone notes and noted by Dr Pitt soon after interaction occurred. Specifically, Dr Pitt recalled prison comment [read c DP being so very sad at hearing such a hurtful thing]

Submission point raised front and centre - quotes pleadings must set out legal propositions on which a party relies.
Two patient care incidents. Resuss incident - NC said appeared and reappeared - that is cos DU only asked to give details c Xmas Eve incident and gave other

details then. SP recalls sweets incident. DU doesn't recall that one, but recalls the one where SP told DU that DU could finish the obs. These are consistent with what DU told people.
Incident when DU said hi and waved at C but C didn't acknowledge

C says doesn't remember. Said it was a misfiring interaction - but more than that. Rihanna said couldn't recall conversation. I accept first sentences contradict each other, but if Rihanna can't recall evidence is unlikely to help but doesn't mean DU evidence contradicted.

DU phone notes were the earlier on this, and DH wrote in her account to the BMA in Dec and in her formal complaint and told investigator as well. This are egs of the disregard in which C held DU

When C realised hasn't got away with CR incident she complains about everything. C conduct was worthy of treatment under board policy -this crossed the line and was unacceptable, and inappropriate.

KS email of Dec. C says it was unnecessary to name claimant, but senior people

would have to know. KS is taking against C behaviour not her beliefs - it doesn't mention her beliefs.
Mr Doyle and Ms Currer agreed - MC gave evidence as C line manager. C says decision was animated only by DU account. Not correct. Louise Curren said looked at NNC

Code and decided it came under it.
Suspension - C criticised this as she said rostering problem was surmountable. But also says KS wanted to keep DU and Sp apart. C said knew better than KS what nursing rotas were.

Limited staffing/support over Christmas.

Ms Davidson didn't suspend C. C incorrectly characterises HR as saying they were little more than tittle tattle. ED evidence was that it was also because of patient safety issues. Didn't downgrade those issues. HR took a different view, but to the extent that clinicians

[unclear]
C was not unfairly targeted. Decisions are being made by people on the ground and not in an office.

Evidence of KS was that she told ED directly. No evidence in chief from Louise Curren on this. But ref to conversation on 3rd Jan that patient safety was discussed

so ED knew about it. Wasn't put to ED that she was making up the patient safety issue.

Decision to extend suspension- C says nothing had changed. But circumstances had changed. In January ED was making decision after Xmas Eve and time was short. Later the decision was

With more time to address it, and was only for a short time.

C says that something is missing from documentation- but there is not a smoking gun.

Safety allegations: C says that DU has this made up to have C removed, but DU has strenuously denied this.

G Malone decided investigation needed, but ED took the action.
C says policy not followed - no risk assessment - but policy doesn't require one.
Says management should think c shift patterns, and R did so.

Allegation that datix is inaccurate is misunderstanding. It refers to escalation of prior behaviours with Nurse refusing to acknowledge Doctor in situations. No inconsistency between docs.
Confidentiality. C says broken by R and that C only person who got reminder in July.

C says list of people she sets out 'all knew". But they needed to know. Director of medical education, would need to know re DU. Dep med director would need to know. Dir of Nursing, General and Service Managers in A&S, DU's line manager, the consultants would need to know

- for eg if DU so upset that she would need to go home from her shift. Isla Bumba - inevitable she would need to know - and four people from HR. All would need to know. No one contaminated the I/x. The I/x was done by A Glancey.

Nothing in people's evidence re a conversation with Lottie Miles. KS said she couldn't remember. But a conversation wouldn't have been about the subject of the I/x in any event. As to suggesting that others should have been sent confidentiality reminder as well - that wasnt'

put to Lottie Miles.

However there was suggestion that C had leaked details to press. No one else had done so, so no reminders to them.

Even so, they did get reminders {mentions correspondence]

Other detriments - eg return to work in different location and day shift.
Maggie Currer Jan email - MC wrongly said C referred to NMC. C had not. MC honest that couldn't explain why she said to. C given no evidence that this has damaged her reputation. No on replied to email.

Guarantee that Du would not enter F CR. C acknowledges that issue is escalated to the estates manager. C appears to applaud this. But position the Du had permission to be in F CR remains.
Complaint c not interviewing Rihanna. Cos of annual leave and difficulty in getting hold

of Rihanna's union.
Ms Hamilton was only involved in two things in March-November, a discussion with AG, an email to MSF, and another discussion with AG referred to in email. Assume that was one of the days MSF was not off during the time.

[mentions another piece of correspondence that C says was never sent]
JR I shall address tomorrow re inferences, international jurisprudence and concluding remarks.

J Thank you. Resume tomorrow at 10.

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp please unroll