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?

He's not a witness in the case, at least not yet. Leave him out of this and stop posting and re-posting his photo.

From TT

ST Would id of t employee be a concern for L. Accept that that might explain the response you received re id of staff.
MK Response implied that I would intentionally leak things so not far. Not acceptable to me, I would not do that.
ST Letter talks c implied threat of reputational damage to L and risk of id employees if your client crowdfunds

Thank you. I hope anyone new to the feminism board realises that it isn't a case of "it never happens", and it's not just the people we read about in court cases or newspapers. It could be any one of us that goes through this and that's why we stick up for women.

So clearly Leonardo are aware of crowdfunding for these tribunals. So they must be aware that gender critical women are winning them. So why are we even here?

It feels like they are trying to position the way they told her she couldn't crowdfund for her case as sympathy for the TIM involved, and concern for their identities, rather than a further effort to stop her pursuing this.

💪💐

Perhaps i shouldn’t ask this question, but, here goes.
Are these precious souls mouthy arseholes all over SM, like the good doctor?

This woman is so brave for speaking up, braver than I who just left the company instead of taking it further.

How many hundreds or thousands of women will have done the same?

Where on earth is this going? Men need to take their trousers down too when they sit on the toilet??!

From TT

ST That was your objection.
MK One part. [missed rest - sound v bad]
ST [from Make UK legal services, L legal advisers]
Says taken instruction from client. They would like to deal with matters in amicable constructive manner. Letter has been misunderstood. L accepts that client doesn't agree with approach to toilet facility and wished to test that.
MK yes

What was that about a man sitting down to use the toilet?? I didn’t quite catch that.

So the main concern is the implied threat of reputational damage to Leonardo. Not the law or fairness or workplace regs or the equality act or health and safety, just 'What would the neighbours think...'

From TT

ST [to MK evidence re w and m very different] Not just workplace
MK and society
ST Mention re children. Nothing to do with workplacer
MK no
ST W need to undress more than men. Man sitting in cubicle would have to take off same amount of clothing.
MK Generally. Not always.
ST re questionnaire. You formed view questionnaire was ideological on part of employer.

It's interesting the contrast between MK's handling and Sandie Peggie's. MK sounds impressively professional. She genuinely has done the research and tried to do the right thing for all colleagues. SP's is more of an unfiltered there's a man in my changing room wtf do I do. Which is perfectly valid, because there /is/. SP should have had a MK to fight her corner.

CriticalCondition
Or most of the time, just raise the seat, unzip their flies and aim in the general direction of at the toilet bowl.

Edited to tag Critical

I'm so sorry you had your employer allow this harassment of you when you were pregnant and so vulnerable. I hope you work for a better employer now. What's the betting this company has a very high turnover of female staff? Let's hope one of them eventually has the resources and resilience to take them to court.

You are right, this is why we fight. Because every company allowing mixed sex toilets and men in the ladies is enabling and encouraging this abuse of women and it's happening all over the place silently. Most women just self exclude from the workforce rather than face this sort of sexual harassment, abuse and gaslighting.

Most women can't take on the fight because as we know the process is the punishment and if you're already struggling with a difficult pregnancy of course you can't take on a fight that will result in death and rape threats, as we know it will.

From TT

MK Yes
ST email from L cascaded re equality. Re EHRC. Wendy Allen - following FWS SC, EHRC has released consultation. L will contribute to response. There is a feedback anon page for employees. Internal feedback via Make UK . Any employee could provide views and views would be shared.
MK yes

For a while I thought the argument was that they were going to sort it, and had said they were, and she's just not given them enough chance.
But then it veered off.

I don’t think there’s is any effective difference between the two, is there?

Gosh the sound really is awful today

OMG that’s vile. So sorry you had to go through that

Goodness, do they mean to be so blatant in always prioritising male wants over woman's needs?

Some of these lines of questioning do make the respondents look silly. “Men need to get undressed too”.

Cue perplexed faces across the nation.

@Jimmyneutronsforehead I’m so sorry to hear that.
I hope life is a little kinder to you these days. 💐

From TT

ST So communication by W Allen not ideological.
MK [agrees] [describes a variety of communications]
ST I'm representing L not Unite. Only network mentioned on communications was Pride. A concern to you.
MK First sentence was c difficult time for colleges and mentions Pride.
ST You could talk c confidential counselling etc
MK But context I read this in was [ missed]