Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4

Agreed.

If children don't complain about child abuse, does that make it ok?

I mean, seriously. This argument is beyond ridiculous. And opens up any group to intimidate another in order to break the law.

Appeal needed with @jophoenix to explain in small words how women react differently to men and self exclude rather than complain.

Given how women are continually treated by the courts, it's no bloody surprise.

Surely you can’t make judgements on how many people complain. It’s like someone in the office making sexist jokes. Everyone but one person maybe okay with this sort of banter but it doesn’t mean it’s acceptable and that the one person shouldn’t have the right to complain.

Wow. Gutting.
hi ho hi ho
it’s off to appeal we go

Yes, especially when we know that many women are either too afraid to say anything or are gaslit into "being kind".

So angry that women's rights are deemed only worthy of respect if enough women complain to get them. Nope, they exist whether or not women are brave enough to complain when they are trampled over. Hopefully the appeal will be lodged and sense prevail. Poor Maria, makes a mockery of the law around single sex spaces.

Do we know what the wider implications will be? Does this just apply to a specific workplace scenario? And the judge ruled their policy was lawful because they also provided single occupancy toilets so there was no discrimination in this case?

Will be really interested to hear what Naomi and SM etc say about this

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69303e1bcdec734f4dff4197/B_M_Kelly_v_Leonardo_UK_Limited_-_8001497.2025.pdf

This is where I feel let down by judges! I expect them to rule on the basis of the law, the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and the principle - not whether more that 0.5% of people raised an objection.

'Yes Your Honour I admit I stole a lot of jewels from Hatton Garden, but not many people complained or raised a concern, and they even made a film about us..'

'Oh well in that case, you're free to go..'

What about the principle, rather than whether or not people raise a concern?

Bugger and Arse.

The judgement is wrong. There are sections such as 135-137 that can be demonstrated to be wrong.

If there’s an appeal, very happy to help.

Awful 😞

Statements like this in the judgement seems very problematic to me?

"The claimant submitted that it was disproportionate to sacrifice the dignity and
privacy of all female staff (20% of the workforce) to protect the interests of a
5 tiny minority of trans staff (0.5 % of the workforce). However only 0.05% of
the female workforce had complained or raised a concern about the policy
(i.e. the claimant) and it cannot therefore be said that all women considered
that their dignity and privacy had been sacrificed."

I very much hope that it is appealed.

Seems nonsensical

Summary of the judgement (GROK generated)

Leonardo (the employer) won completely – all of Maria Kelly’s claims were dismissed.

The judge accepted that “sex” in the Equality Act and the Workplace Regulations now means biological sex only (thanks to For Women Scotland 2025).

BUT the judge said the company’s policy of letting people use toilets according to their gender identity is still lawful because:
there were proper cubicles + single-occupancy options,
no actual incidents or complaints from anyone else,
the claimant’s fear was treated as “ideological” rather than a real detriment to her personally.

In short: biological sex is the law, but employers can still let trans-identified staff use opposite-sex toilets if they think it’s “proportionate” and provide some alternatives.

Massive blow for workplace single-sex spaces – basically says self-ID is still okay in private companies as long as they’ve got a cubicle and say they’re being inclusive.

Expect an appeal to the EAT, but for now this is being treated as the current position in England & Wales (Scotland may differ).

I’d say that has ‘appeal’ written all over it!

Having had a very quick scan this is very disappointing. Will need to read more to try and understand the reasoning

this is a setback, appeal?

Has anyone else seen this?
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/b-m-kelly-v-leonardo-uk-ltd-8001497-slash-2024

Are we thinking before or after Christmas for the result?
Feels like there is a bit of a nail biting time coming up.

Does anyone have sight of Maria Kelly’s grounds of claim? On the Friday morning Naomi Cunningham took the Leonardo witness (Andrew Letton?) through 6 general statements which she said were in the grounds of claim and which she asked him to agree were true. She didn’t read all of them out so they’re not all in TT. They included things like women subject to greater taboos around modesty and women having a greater need for privacy.

How do they decide comp? I think she deserves all of it; they humiliated her and didn’t care about that I. Order to appease the men in frocks

I love this description.

NC is such a strong warrior!

The TT summary does include then judge's questions, though, which are interesting.