Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4

If 1 person (Maria) is 0.05% of the female workforce then the female workforce is 2000 women. If women are 20% of the workforce then the the whole workforce is 10,000 people. If trans staff are 0.5% of the workforce that is 50 people. Yeah, no, we didn't hear evidence that they had 50 trans staff.

Disgusting. And what about women who did not complain because 1) they did not dare 2) they did not KNOW ? Do they have to be submitted to seeing a bloke in a toilet which is supposed to be single sex in order for their lack of consent to be acknowledged? Do we have to be raped in order to say we don't like being raped and this should not happen anymore (sorry for exaggerating to make myself clear)

Very disappointing and extremely difficult to understand to anyone that followed the case closely.

Yes it’s binding - better this way

If it’s overturned at appeal, does that make it precedent in a way that it wouldn’t have been if it had been upheld at this stage?

The result has come in very quickly. And lack of complaints does not mean agreement.

Maya says Maria is planning to appeal (and reckons this will be overturned at appeal): https://x.com/MForstater/status/1996231530935353366

Such poor logic. How many demonstrations of the process being the punishment do there need to be for the judges to consider why so few people dare to speak up.

Edited due to my initial misreading.

Yes, quite

I can't believe someone sat through that tribunal and came to those conclusions

edit: pressed post accidentally

Don't think first-tier ETs set precedent either in England & Wales or in Scotland - only EATs do.

Anyone know the difference between tribunal decisions made in Scotland (this one) and the impact on England and Wales. AI seems to suggest there is a difference on what is binding and what is not. Completely clueless what this all means and not trusting of AI.

O.K! And the judge...was there an inkling that they didn't get it?

No, you're thinking of the Darlington nurses. This was Naomi.

Surely lack of complaint is not the same as agreeing with.
Especially on this topic whereby complaint often results in being suspended etc.
Plus surely then toilets should be appropriately signed.

Do i recall the lawyer for thhe claimant being male and not that well versed on the issue?

IANAL but it seems to me there is scope for appeal on points of law in that judgement. If Maria is up for it. I’m sure NC and CE would be.

The judgement seems to rest on the idea that there were "sufficient" unisex single-use facilities (but even there, there was this weird double-door thing, right?) - but without knowing how many women were unwilling or unable to share with men, how would any organisation know they had sufficient? Clearly you can't rely on how many women put their head above the parapet to complain. There also seems to be a suggestion that the judge bought the idea that it's all fine because the individual cubicles in the now mixed-sex "ladies" lock, which is just unbelievable. Sigh. I hope it gets appealed, otherwise, as the redditors crowing observe, we'll be back at it being fine for anyone to offer "trans inclusive single sex" facilities provided they also have a unisex single room or two.

This must be taken to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The reasons given within the ruling seem extraordinarily weak. We wouldn't accept discrimination against employees with disabilities because only a small number had felt sufficiently confident to raise their concerns. Particularly as this was within an, apparently, extremely hostile organisational environment. I would happily contribute to the costs of this appeal.

As the superior court, EAT decisions create a legal precedent that all other Employment Tribunals must follow in similar cases. So this opens up a major opportunity.

Plus. If I worked for Leonardo, I would be alternately spitting flames of wrath and fluorescent bile at this result. It will hopefully encourage more of their unhappy women employees to bravely come forward.

I hope the judge has time to reflect on this report. https://iipcv-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/E03342246_Angiolini-Inquiry-Pt2_Accessible.pdf in relation to his judgement.

I think it Alison Bailey's recent hearing where Ben Cooper suggested that if they were talking about any other protected characteristic they wouldn't be sitting there. It's the same here.

Disappointing. I'll have a read over the judgement later, or if the dentist is running late I could use some reading material this afternoon.

... https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1pd63zm/kelly_v_leonardo_ltd/

Particularly when you consider the pressure that women have been under in other cases to withdraw their complaints. Does anyone have the numbers at Darlington that were part of the process at the beginning vs those who were there at the end?

What a load of bollocks.

I can’t get my head round how wrong the judgement is. I really hope this goes to appeal. If it does I can supply lots of case studies to demonstrate the judgement is wrong.