Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal 29th September 10am

[ickky]

Hello

Don't know much about this case other than Naomi Cunningham is representing Ms Kelly.

If you want to observe send an email to

[email protected]

Subject line

Ms BM Kelly v Leonardo UK Limited Employment Tribunal – hearing Case number: 8001497/2024

Ask for the link and pin to observe.

State you are a member of the public and give your full name and the email address you will use to access the tribunal.

Anyone interested?

One or two cubicles are not sufficient for the size of the work force.

But not all of them were using the single self enclosed cubicles were they?!

I didn't see anything mentioned that she couldn't get in them when she needed to...then the claim would be presumably that there wasn't sufficient appropriate toilet facilities.

So yeah it's not clear what her claim is for or arguments supporting it. I don't want to cheer someone just BC they are GC, so I'll leave you to it...

Jeez it is not about who wants to you use what toilet or cubicle, the law requires sufficient facilities for both the male and female population.

why are you posting a view on here when apparently you have the thinnest of understanding about the law.

Which is what a LEGAL ACTION, is all about, you know, the law.

I wonder if this is the article MK was talking about (referred to but not linked in excellent times piece above) https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2024/07/aerowomen-2024-conference/

She's right, the event and the women's stories are so important, and then every paragraph feels off as 'gender' is inserted where 'sex' belongs.

The toilets do not meet the requirements to be classed as mixed sex, ie single use facilties fully enclosed including the hand wash facilties. The toilets are split between male and female but there are some men using the female facilities.

As per Michael Foran, the requirement to provide suitable and sufficient facilties is not a requirement to provide some suitable facilties and then you are free to provide unsuitable facilties (ie a facility that is used by women and a soecial group of men) so long as some of your facilities as suitable. The legal requirement is to provide suitable facilties. The law applies to ALL the facilties.

@TumbleMumbleJungle wrote
I didn't see anything mentioned that she couldn't get in them when she needed to...then the claim would be presumably that there wasn't sufficient appropriate toilet facilities.

Did you hear the bit about how she had to go round several people’s desks, and through an open area which was possibly a cafe seating area, to get to them? Not ideal when you think you have bled through your clothes.

Gosh, I've read pretty much every post on the Sandie Peggie / Fife threads but I've found this one has hit home quite hard, in a way that the SP one didn't. I work in a similar enviroment to Maria and I can really identify with the situation and whole male-dominated atmosphere. I am so thankful that my own workplace seems to have taken on board the SC ruling - we had a mandatory EDI training session recently and it touched upon trans rights, although that wasn't the focus of the session. There was a video which included a trans person saying something along the lines of "I'm so grateful that I can use the facilities which match my identity", and the trainer actually clarified (rather uncomfortably, it seemed) at the end that that didn't apply in the UK since the SC judgment. Hooray!

But reading the TT transcript (thank you, Myrtle) I could really sense Maria's feelings of shame that she was having to explain in words of one sylable to a bunch of men exactly why she, and the other women, needed SS spaces. When I started work I was the only female in most of the offices I worked in, which was bad enough without the prospect of bumping into one of the senior men as he exits the cubicle zipping up his flies... I would have died of embarassment on the spot. That's even before you factor in the menstrual aspect and the need for privacy that that brings. The power balance in these types of environments is so skewed. Men and Male are the default whether the men realise it or not. It was painful to read the lengths that Maria had to go through to try and get them to recognise that the women are entitled to dignity and privacy.

You seem to have missed quite a lot in your reading.

For example that is wasn't a case of mixed sex plus single occupancy. It was a case of "women's" loos being opened to use by men, and women not being informed about this - so using mixed sex facilities without their knowledge or consent.

That the "mixed sex women's" loos don't meet the regulations for mixed sex facilities.

That there were insufficient single occupancy facilities for the number of women, and the company 'rectified' the problem by removing one of them.

That Kelly was harassed and threatened for raising the issue.

Among other points.

And what's more, why should a woman have to give up her space for a man, when it would be a simpler matter to get him to use a self-contained toilet.

Even more importantly they had mixed sex loos with shared sinks outside the cubicles, so any man could hear/see a woman about her business, washing blood or cleaning a menstrual cup.

I posted this on the other thread.

Why is it that women have to justify the need for single sex toilets? I don't have any of the issues this person does, and I don't want to share a toilet with a man.

She has a right under the law. The reason she has a right undert the law is because the law recognises that for females to participate in society on an equal basis they have to have access to single sex spaces because of the threat that males pose to them (i.e. bigger, stronger, faster and more sexually aggressive).

I was particularly struck with the contrast between the pious lip service paid to “menopause awareness” vs the reality of forcing poor Maria to spell out what the menopause means for (many) women in real life. It’s almost as though these supposedly clever people are actually rather limited in understanding and imagination, though endowed with notable sense of their own superiority.

I though it was very clear.

MK felt disadvantaged because her employer failed to follow the law and provide the legally required number of toilets for employees of her sex. By making what MK had thought were single sex toilets mixed sex, they forced her to use less easily accessible toilets that were less likely to be used by men while the male employees had better access to closer and more easily accessible ones (because men are less disadvantaged by mixed sex toilets than women and because, as far as MK was aware, there were no trans identified women using the male toilets).

She was frustrated by the way her employer failed to answer her attempts to clarify what their position was for a whole year and humiliated and distressed by their handling of her concerns when she challenged the illegal policy as she had to explain her perimenopausal symptoms to a room of men in some sort of attempt to make her justify her request for them to follow the law. She was also made to feel as though she was in a precarious position raising the issue in other situations because of statements made by more senior people.

On top of this she was concerned that the company made the toilets mixed sex but did not tell female employees. So women were unaware that some men had company blessing to enter the women's toilets at any point when they were in there without warning. MK herself was surprised by a man entering the toilets as she was leaving (which is what made her use the other, less convenient toilets) but might have been mortified if he'd entered a few minutes earlier as she was washing blood off her hands.

It's all in the TT transcript, so I'm not sure what you were reading but if it really was the transcript and that all escaped you, you might want to look into some sort of reading comprehension education.

Sorry, I can't do clever graphics, but I can recognise a troll when I see one and you're absolutely right. I'm still learning the unspoken rules round here, but I take it we don't feed it?

I was particularly struck with the contrast between the pious lip service paid to “menopause awareness” vs the reality of forcing poor Maria to spell out what the menopause means for (many) women in real life.

Probably part of the tick box culture present in large firms. Bang up a few posters - job done.

It's a bit late now, but for any future ones or anyone else who doesn't want to put their real name, there's no requirement to. When applying for access you have to provide a full name, the capacity in which you wish to view (ie observer, reporter) and an email address. You can use any full name and a burner email. As long as you sign on with the same name as has been given access no one will check.

Morning all
a worthwhile task to complete while you are WFTHCJ
stopsurrogacynowuk.org/2025/09/05/please-share-your-thoughts-with-parliament-deadline-5th-october/

Rainbow lanyards, tho…

Rainbow lanyards, tho…

This now gives me a coded message - "We discriminate against women."

What time does it start, today?

What do you make of an ambulance that's emblazoned with 'proud supporters of the LGBTQIA community'?

I know two autistic people who take it as 'but not people with disabilities, visible or invisible.' They also want to know why we have painted signs on the road saying 'thank you our NHS' but not to thank schools or dustmen. I had to explain about hierarchies of equality and capture of organisations. That did not go down too well... On a lighter note, they were anti-demonstrations but wondering about the possibilities of getting access to computer systems to insert the message of 'you're supposed to be here for everyone.'

10am. Log in requested by 9.50.

Me too.

There was a graphic called the INTERRUPTARON that was posted on the Sandie Peggie threads. I will look for it and bring it here before the court is in session.

While we're waiting, an aside on terrible Equality Impact Assessments - our local Council belatedly did one on their awful school trans inclusion toolkit, after it was pointed out that they were supposed to have done one. It's an extraordinary document, clearly written by someone filling in a form as fast as possible without any understanding of the purpose of the exercise.

It cheerfully explains how they've drawn on research from Stonewall (and noone else) and have consulted some 'trans children' (and noone else) and where the template asks them to go through the possible impact on people with other protected characteristics, with evidence, it just says "Ensuring that an identified vulnerable group is not discriminated against and have their needs met will not have a negative impact on any other group or individual."

Wouldn't that be nice if it were true.

It doesn't acknowledge the impact of pretending that a child has changed sex for anyone else at all at any point. Religious belief gets the added bonus of being highlighted as a problem, that there are, "Potential barriers to ethical beliefs within church schools."

(They've since updated the toolkit, but the new version isn't much better ...)

Sadly Smallpeice have always been pro-trans. Far more than supporting students with SEN to attend their expensive courses. Ask me how I know.

I know two autistic people who take it as 'but not people with disabilities, visible or invisible.'

I absolutely agree. I could amend my statement to read "We discriminate against women, people with disabilities and people of colour."

It's very much been brought home to me with a close family member now being disabled, and how difficult it is to go anywhere because of needing accessible buildings, accessible loos etc.