NHS nurse tribunal ruling 'hugely problematic for women,' putting emphasis on complainants as govt still dallies over Supreme Court guidance
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to 'show some leadership' on women's rights after a 'problematic' employment tribunal appeared to contradict the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
Sandie Peggie sued her NHS trust when she was suspended after complaining about having to share a female changing room with a transgender doctor.
A tribunal ruled on Monday that health bosses had harassed the nurse - but her other claims were dismissed and the judge said that it was lawful for a biological male to use a female changing room.
Ms Peggie's lawyer has criticised the judgment as 'hugely problematic for women' while women's rights groups said last night that it is 'in direct conflict' with April's Supreme Court ruling.
The UK's highest court ruled unanimously earlier this year that sex in the Equality Act refers to biological women and men and not to self-identification or a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
Businesses and public bodies have been forced to change their rules since the Supreme Court ruling. But Labour has still not published official guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission on how it should be implemented, despite Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson having it for months.
On Tuesday, Marion Calder from For Women Scotland - one of the women who brought the case in April - said the tribunal ruling is 'very concerning' and will put women off bringing similar cases.
She told the Mail: 'This does go against our ruling at the Supreme Court, and it does appear that this tribunal, a low-level tribunal, was trying to rework our case, which is astonishing.'
Sandie Peggie hugs her solicitor Margaret Gribbon after getting the tribunal judgement on Monday
Susan smith (left) and Marion Calder (right) co-directors of For Women Scotland celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London after terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex
Nurse Sandie Peggie outside the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood in Edinburgh on June 18
She added: 'The reason we took our case to the Supreme Court was to stop individuals having to take these tribunal cases, because we know the huge financial and emotional cost that comes with it.
'We thought that this would kind of save women from having to do it. But here we are, and the cases continue.
'Bridget Phillipson, Keir Starmer and Labour need to stand up and actually show some leadership on this, because women are actually getting harmed.'
It came after Ms Peggie's solicitor Margaret Gribbon said that aspects of her judgment were 'hugely problematic for women'.
She said: 'Our preliminary thoughts are that aspects of the judgment are hugely problematic for women, leaving the onus on them to object when their privacy, dignity and safety are violated when men are given access to single-sex spaces.'
A source said it is thought likely that the nurse will appeal. She and her legal team are set to provide a more detailed response to the ruling later this week.
Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters, said the tribunal's ruling is 'directly in conflict with the For Women Scotland case' and creates a 'complete muddle'.
She said the ruling has created a scenario whereby it's lawful for trans women to use women's changing rooms only until there is a complaint, putting the onus on women rather than employers.
She told the Mail: 'When you see how women who complain are treated, who's going to complain? Women are now in this bind whereby if you don't complain, it'll be assumed there's no problem.
'But then if you do complain, unless everyone complains, you'll be told that you're the one with the problem and you might be suspended.'
Ms McAnena also raised concerns about the ruling giving legal weight to whether a trans woman - a biological man - looks 'feminine' or not rather, than being purely focused on biological sex.
She said: 'It doesn't matter how feminine you are or how masculine you are. The Supreme Court judgment was really clear that there's only one kind of woman, and that's a person born female.'
Dr Michael Foran, an associate professor of Law at the University of Oxford whose work was cited in the April case, said the tribunal's decision does not overrule the Supreme Court judgement but does create a more 'complicated position'.
The next step would be the employment appeal tribunal, which is a second-tier tribunal so would set legal precedent depending on the outcome.
Mr Foran said: 'I'm pretty sure that there will be an appeal… from my look at this judgment it seems like there's quite a lot to think about that might warrant having further consideration by a more superior court.'
A spokesman for NHS Fife said: 'We will now take time to work through the detail of the judgment alongside our legal team to understand fully what it means for the organisation.'
