Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4

684 replies

ickky · 24/10/2025 09:14

The Tribunal has now finished and we await the judgement.

Abbreviations:

C or MK - Claimant, Maria Kelly
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C
KW - Katy Wedderburn, solicitor for C
R or L - Respondent. Leonardo UK
ST - Susanne Tanner KC, barrister for R
J - Judge
P - Panel member
GC - gender critical
GI - gender identity
AL - Andrew R Letton VP People Shared Services Leonardo - respondent witness

Tribunal Tweets coverage here

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?page=1

Thread 2 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420656-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-2

Thread 3
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5421183-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-3

Kelly vs Leonardo UK Ltd

Tribunal will consider workplace toilet provision

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
Talkinpeace · 10/12/2025 14:31

So,
In light of the lies by the Judge in the Peggie ET about their case precedents
who fancies checking the Leonardo document for the same sort of errors !

Keeptoiletssafe · 10/12/2025 02:21

Ah. Forget me sharing that one.

The judge is so naive - talking about moral propriety. This is loos we are talking about. In the sexual offences act they are specifically mentioned in the Voyeurism section and even had their own clause added.

Keeptoiletssafe · 10/12/2025 01:55

NebulousSupportPostcard · 10/12/2025 00:55

Oh god is that what steel walls were for? They did that long ago to some previously beautiful Victorian toilets in our city centre. I had assumed it was too expensive/not feasible to restore the tile!

To be fair I think it’s a general anti-vandalism measure and a way of washing the walls down but I can look for the source tomorrow if you want. Steel coverings has lead to an electrocution death with a loose wire. I was thinking they were a good solution before that.

If you see a hole in a wall with toilet paper pushed in it, resist pulling out the toilet paper!

Boiledbeetle · 10/12/2025 01:18

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 22:13

Well a few more photos for my phone. Marvellous ‘memories’ I get played when my phone throws me a roll.

It appears we need the Chinese trough so the Judge will allows us to keep the men out!

I can still remember being 3 and going to a public toilet for the first time in Hong Kong and it being just like your pictures. I was horrified!

I'd Struggle to stand up again afterwards these days but if it keeps the men out then fine. Just stick a grab rail to one of the ones that's got a wall by the side of it and I'll make it work!

NebulousSupportPostcard · 10/12/2025 00:55

Keeptoiletssafe · 10/12/2025 00:49

Yes endometriosis is another one - Waterloo Road did a good awareness episode where a girl collapsed in the toilet cubicle and her friends got in quickly by a twist lock.

If the Judge has concerns with propriety she would be horrified if she spent an afternoon looking at what goes on in loos.

Some things we have tried in this country to keep private toilet designs safe (off the top of my head):

  1. floors that weigh you and if you are so heavy that it thinks you are two people, the door opens automatically (great for mums and kids!)
  2. sound monitors where certain sounds (?!?) trigger the intercom to ask if you are ok
  3. Movement alarms
  4. restricting the cubicles so they are so small two people can’t have sex in them. Doesn’t work with planes - where there is a will…
  5. doors on timers. Dreaded feature of the mixed sex, private Superloo invasion that didn’t work. Boys worked out that banging the door would make it open and people got stuck.
  6. toilets that spray liquid on floor. Stops rough sleepers
  7. weird coloured lights to stop drug use. Just makes it more dangerous for several different groups like those who are going to inject anyway and those with visual deficits.
  8. stainless steel walls so men can’t bore holes in them (glory holes)

Oh god is that what steel walls were for? They did that long ago to some previously beautiful Victorian toilets in our city centre. I had assumed it was too expensive/not feasible to restore the tile!

Keeptoiletssafe · 10/12/2025 00:49

Yes endometriosis is another one - Waterloo Road did a good awareness episode where a girl collapsed in the toilet cubicle and her friends got in quickly by a twist lock.

If the Judge has concerns with propriety she would be horrified if she spent an afternoon looking at what goes on in loos.

Some things we have tried in this country to keep private toilet designs safe (off the top of my head):

  1. floors that weigh you and if you are so heavy that it thinks you are two people, the door opens automatically (great for mums and kids!)
  2. sound monitors where certain sounds (?!?) trigger the intercom to ask if you are ok
  3. Movement alarms
  4. restricting the cubicles so they are so small two people can’t have sex in them. Doesn’t work with planes - where there is a will…
  5. doors on timers. Dreaded feature of the mixed sex, private Superloo invasion that didn’t work. Boys worked out that banging the door would make it open and people got stuck.
  6. toilets that spray liquid on floor. Stops rough sleepers
  7. weird coloured lights to stop drug use. Just makes it more dangerous for several different groups like those who are going to inject anyway and those with visual deficits.
  8. stainless steel walls so men can’t bore holes in them (glory holes)
SexRealismBeliefs · 09/12/2025 23:07
  1. The Judge has indicated that the Workplace Regs the Schedule 22 exception does not apply to Regulation 20 of the 1992 Regs because it is not concerned with “protecting women in relation to—(a)pregnancy or maternity, or (b)any other circumstances giving rise to risks specifically affecting women.

I think this is an error of law. EqA 2010, Sch 22 provides for exceptions to the general prohibitions of differential treatment based on protected characteristics.

Pregnancy and Maternity in the Workplace: Provisions permit differential treatment related to sex, pregnancy, and maternity to protect the health and safety of women who are pregnant or have recently given birth, or against risks specific to women.

The Workplace Regulation 1992 was enacted to provide separate sex toilet provisions. The later Eq Act 2010 layered over another element of protection for pregnant and maternity protection.

Women in Schedule 22 of the EqA can only be biological women. A trans identified male cannot ever require additional protection that this affords. And he can never be afforded the rights under Sch 22 pregnancy and maternity.

Toilets are a significant space for women who are pregnant or in their maternity period. So even if the Judge came to the view that the sinks can be mixed sex within the wider toilet room they then need to view that decision through the Schedule 22 lens.

It is within judicial knowledge that women may require to use toilets as the only private space to undertake activities that are related to pregnancy and maternity within the workplace.

Women who are seeking to get pregnant may endure long periods attempting to get pregnant via IVF and require somewhere to carry out daily injections. Other women may be using ovulation predictor kits to assess when fertile for a successful pregnancy. Women have specific dates and times for pregnancy tests for use under IVF and that may well need to be scheduled during a work period.

Women often experience spotting or bleeding during pregnancy. When women start experiencing a miscarriage, the experience vaginal bleeding which is often accompanied with sudden pains and contraction like sensations. The toilet is where women go to investigate what is happening & navigate concerns about potential miscarriage.

Women have done and continue to experience miscarriage at work. 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and can happen at any time. With some 250,000 miscarriages – one in four pregnancies – occurring in the UK each year, most workforces have staff that have been or may be affected. https://www.wihb.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Miscarriage-and-the-Workplace-1.pdf]

The same document - from NHS Scotland no less says - "A woman who starts to miscarry at work is likely to be distressed, frightened and embarrassed. She will need privacy, support and access to a toilet, and may appreciate help in getting home or to hospital. If she is very unwell an ambulance may be needed."

If the pregnancy is successful women use the toilets to navigate pregnancy related vomiting and some women experience hyper emesis which can be so severe as to lead to hospitalisation. When women move to the post pregnancy period the toilet is very important to manage maternity related issues including management of post birth bleeding, re-dressing caesarean scars, expressing milk, managing breast engorgement or painful mastitis when returning to work while still breastfeeding.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 22:59

When you think of the particular industries this week's tribunals have been considering - emergency medicine and military defence - why in fuck's name would anyone want to reduce the quality of toilets for everyone, in order to resolve a dispute.

Do we really want military helicopters designed by engineers with kidney disorders from avoiding the workplace toilets? Or resus clinicians waddling around us in heavily soiled scrubs because there is nowhere safe to change?
Obviously no-one should have inadequate provision but you'd think the fairly extreme scenarios presented would cause the tribunals to pause for just a small amount of thought?

It beggars belief.

Bluebootsgreenboots · 09/12/2025 22:37

@Keeptoiletssafe brilliant pics! They’re better than the ones I remember which were literally a tiled trough that you straddled. Ugh, gross.

SexRealismBeliefs · 09/12/2025 22:21

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 22:13

Well a few more photos for my phone. Marvellous ‘memories’ I get played when my phone throws me a roll.

It appears we need the Chinese trough so the Judge will allows us to keep the men out!

She would say thats the same as a urinal so no disadvantage compared to men.

When you're captured you're captured!

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 22:21

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf

This is the HSE document the Judge got her info from by the way. Nothing correlates with her points.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 22:13

Well a few more photos for my phone. Marvellous ‘memories’ I get played when my phone throws me a roll.

It appears we need the Chinese trough so the Judge will allows us to keep the men out!

Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4
Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4
SexRealismBeliefs · 09/12/2025 22:08

So I got a bit dragged in by a puppy over on the Peggie case.

I am just taking a wee gander at the appealable points.

The judgment says at 312

The 1992 Regs do not distinguish between a man and a woman’s human right to bodily privacy. The requirement for separate facilities is for moral propriety between the sexes i.e. of both sexes relative to each other. Both women and men have privacy needs when using the toilet. [Moral propriety is shoe horned in here. It has nothing to do with Reg 20]

The 1992 Regs do not give any primacy to a woman’s bodily privacy over a man’s. A woman in the female toilets would be using a toilet within a cubicle but a man in the male toilets might be using a urinal rather than a cubicle and the presence of a trans man may have greater impact on their privacy.

It cannot reasonably be said the presence of a trans woman in the female toilets would cause a greater violation of a woman’s bodily privacy than the presence of a trans man in the male toilets would cause to a man’s bodily privacy. There was no basis for concluding that the toilets were less suitable for a woman than a man.

Yes a trans identified male, i.e. a biological man does have a greater impact upon a woman. The reasons for this are many.

The Judge bangs on a fair bit about how the cubicles are private but sinks can be mixed sex.

My view is this an appealable point as men do not require the level of privacy women do.

Consider men actually use public urinals. There is no equivalent for women.

Women need privacy from men while washing their hands while using the toilet or in the general space of the toilet room. Womens bodies and functions are markedly different to mens.

Men use the loos mostly to pee, otherwise to poop. Its a binary use. Any other use isn't suitable for work.

Women at work will be managing menstruation, bleeding during pregnacy, concerns re managing a miscarriage, pregnancy related vomiting and hyper emesis, maternity related issues including management of post birth bleeding, re-dressing ceaserean scars, expressing milk, managing breast engorgement when returning to work while still breastfeeding, age related menopausal flooding. In many of these cases women need privacy to change their clothes and need privacy to navigate between toilets and sinks.

If women use menstrual cups, empting in toilet and rinsing in the sink is common.

Statistically women are more likely to urinary tract infections (UTIs) due to anatomy, leading to frequent urination and discomfort. thenewfeminist.co.uk.

The Workplace Regs ensure that sanitary disposal in stalls but they didn't consider impact of moon cups/ re-usable sanitary wear. Sinks are required for this use.

This is why women suffer direct disrcrimination if bio men are allowed to use the ladies, compared to bio women using the mens. And why the sinks need to be included in the envelope of the toilet space as they are essential to women's privacy.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 22:05

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 21:31

The Judge said:
Has R complied with Regulation 20 of the 1992 Regs?

236.The claimant submitted that cubicles with gaps did not constitute a separate room under the 1992 Regs. The respondent did not submit that their cubicles with gaps constituted rooms or provided adequate privacy.
237. If a separate toilet block is provided for men and women, Reg 20(2) does not require separate toilet cubicles for each user. If a separate toilet block is not provided, Reg 20(2) requires each convenience to be in a separate lockable room. The relevant ACOP states: "196.
Facilities should be arranged to
ensure adequate privacy for the user. In particular: each toilet should be in a separate room or cubicle, with a door that can be secured from the inside".
Accordingly, cubicles with gaps (which may allow for more hygienic cleaning), may, depending upon the circumstances, provide adequate bodily privacy for each user and moral propriety between the sexes if no urinals are provided.

Still keep coming back to these points 😮😮
So is Judge is saying we can have single sex communal loos with no privacy at all and cubicles with gaps are fine for mixed sex toilets? Said no building standards or legislation ever. As the claimants noted, and the respondent didn’t dispute, these cubicles with gaps are within a room. Even the building standards at the time said cubicles with gaps or without gaps were cubicles within rooms.

The answer to the Judges question is NO - Leonardo has not complied with the legislation that states 20.2(c) separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.

When I first read this, it brought memories of a night out at a local pub decades ago, when we heard screaming and hysteria from the ladies loos. When we went in outselves, there was a row of cubicles with the doors missing, and although there was a notice directing people to an alternative set of toilets, loads of women were so drunk and desperate to wee that they were just sitting in a row getting on with it.

Obviously the outer door should have been locked, and it was sorted in good humour, but my mind boggles that J Sutherland apparently didn't think too hard or visualise the scenario she was setting down in writing.

Presumably cubicles aren't needed for men using urinals, but how far does her thinking extend. Could several buckets suffice, within each room? When those TRAs protested with bottles of urine, was Judge Sutherland calculating how much smaller the bottles could be for biological women?

Bluebootsgreenboots · 09/12/2025 21:48

Also, if the condition for that (enough privacy if there are cubicles within an enclosed room) to apply is that there are no urinals, surely that means that men can come in to the women's but women can't go in to the men's - they're single sex by default as they have urinals.
Are we going to have to install female only open multiple user, no partition troughs, which
I saw everywhere in China many moons ago, to keep the men out??!!
ETA - replying to @Keeptoiletssafe

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 21:31

The Judge said:
Has R complied with Regulation 20 of the 1992 Regs?

236.The claimant submitted that cubicles with gaps did not constitute a separate room under the 1992 Regs. The respondent did not submit that their cubicles with gaps constituted rooms or provided adequate privacy.
237. If a separate toilet block is provided for men and women, Reg 20(2) does not require separate toilet cubicles for each user. If a separate toilet block is not provided, Reg 20(2) requires each convenience to be in a separate lockable room. The relevant ACOP states: "196.
Facilities should be arranged to
ensure adequate privacy for the user. In particular: each toilet should be in a separate room or cubicle, with a door that can be secured from the inside".
Accordingly, cubicles with gaps (which may allow for more hygienic cleaning), may, depending upon the circumstances, provide adequate bodily privacy for each user and moral propriety between the sexes if no urinals are provided.

Still keep coming back to these points 😮😮
So is Judge is saying we can have single sex communal loos with no privacy at all and cubicles with gaps are fine for mixed sex toilets? Said no building standards or legislation ever. As the claimants noted, and the respondent didn’t dispute, these cubicles with gaps are within a room. Even the building standards at the time said cubicles with gaps or without gaps were cubicles within rooms.

The answer to the Judges question is NO - Leonardo has not complied with the legislation that states 20.2(c) separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.

Legobricksinatub · 09/12/2025 17:14

The asylum courts also seem to have activist judges. It seems judges are chosen from lawyers with interest and experience in that area, and they have interest and get experience in that area by working for organisations lobbying/promoting immigration. Meaning there is an inherent bias in the appointment of judges.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/12/2025 16:13

KitWyn · 09/12/2025 14:39

I understand why it is so difficult to sack judges, judicial independence is vital. But so is judicial competence.

At this point I consider first-tier employment judge rulings on women-only-spaces as an initial opportunity for virtue signalling by 'nice'-but-dim upper/middle class twits. And then it will inevitably be lost on appeal to much cleverer & more-senior judges.

If a judge's decision is overturned it should be treated like a junior doctor's error, as a very important learning opportunity. At the very least a junior judge should be required to review the appeal decision in detail and then have a short session with one of the lead appeal judges to discuss his or her failings.

There should be greater consequences for serious failings by judges.

Agree, like that terrible Sheffield hospital one.

JoyintheMorning · 09/12/2025 15:08

@SlackJawedDisbeliefXY is right I think, we had circular washing basins in a factory, these had a foot control for water instead of a hand operated tap.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 14:50

Re-posting after fact-checking:

Interesting article on judicial accountability, with discussion of the role played by Barry Clarke, ET (Eng & Wales) President, who I think made the decision in the case I posted above. https://davidhencke.com/2025/09/15/the-black-hole-of-accountability-employment-judges-block-evidence-in-their-own-misconduct-cases/

Judge Barry Clarke is both President of Employment Tribunal (England and Wales, and is a Visiting Judge in the Scotland Appeal Tribunal.

The Black Hole of Accountability: Employment Judges Block Evidence in Their Own Misconduct Cases

Judge Barry Clarke who is president of employment tribunals in England and Wales The English and Welsh Employment Tribunal system is operating under an extraordinary contradiction that strikes at t…

https://davidhencke.com/2025/09/15/the-black-hole-of-accountability-employment-judges-block-evidence-in-their-own-misconduct-cases/

KitWyn · 09/12/2025 14:39

I understand why it is so difficult to sack judges, judicial independence is vital. But so is judicial competence.

At this point I consider first-tier employment judge rulings on women-only-spaces as an initial opportunity for virtue signalling by 'nice'-but-dim upper/middle class twits. And then it will inevitably be lost on appeal to much cleverer & more-senior judges.

If a judge's decision is overturned it should be treated like a junior doctor's error, as a very important learning opportunity. At the very least a junior judge should be required to review the appeal decision in detail and then have a short session with one of the lead appeal judges to discuss his or her failings.

There should be greater consequences for serious failings by judges.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 14:39

removed to fact check

NoBinturongsHereMate · 09/12/2025 14:04

That does sound a bit like 'doubting professionalism'.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 13:19

Possibly of interest: Employment Appeal Tribunal decision published October 2025: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68ed00b8a8398380cb4acfcd/DBP_v_Scottish_Ambulance_Service__2025__EAT_147.pdf

Referring to Employment Judge Sutherland:

"...while in no way doubting the professionalism of the judge, I consider that the matter should be remitted to a different tribunal. I bear in mind that I have concluded that the judge’s approach was plainly wrong and that she has now refused the application for permanent anonymity on three occasions."

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 15:38

Also, remember that I am not trying to spoil fun but in any set of toilets or changing rooms, if the design is private enough for sex then it’s private enough for sexual assault.

At the same time as this case and Sandy Peggy’s case, we have the Sarah Everard inquiry saying we urgently need much more (any) knowledge about the location of assaults so we can prevent them in future.

Health and Safety should be paramount. Single sex spaces and within the spaces private for that sex, individual spaces that are not totally hidden.

Swipe left for the next trending thread