Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 3

[ickky]

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.

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?page=1

Just quickly saying thank you to @ickky and everyone else keeping us up to date, couldn't watch it but fascinated and reading it all!

I am very intrigued by the TT bit where NC was asking about men coming on site - this bit:

AL: But they would also be safe people. People on site would be, um.

Was that literally it? Did he just realise the idiocy of what he was saying and fall silent?

All this 'no one has complained' makes me SO CROSS. Lots of the reasons women want female only toilets are reasons that are very hard to bring up at work. And may happen 'in the moment' and a woman may not realise the imperative need until after the problem has surfaced.

For example 'I want female toilets just in case I miscarry at work' is not really a conversation any woman wants to have. Or 'I have been abused by my violent partner and being surprised by a man in what I thought was a female only space is very traumatic'.

And in any case, their policy was not to tell people this was the policy. So fewer than 100% of the women in the company would have known that was the policy.

PMK to have popcorn later

@MultiDomainTchnologicalCapabilities

Yes he said that they are all checked and are usually the same people.

As if that is any guarantee.

Thanks all for the new thread and this morning's updates. #sadtimes for AL.

Sorry, asked at the end of that last one without twigging.
Does everyone else have the room but frozen please?

And what does checked mean? I can't imagine they'd need a DBS check, and he sure as hell wouldn't have asked them if they were dodgy or misogynistic...

I have a bluish screen with a camera icon crossed out, but before that had the waiting room (but I was still in)

Oh, its just changed to a view of the room!

NC: Put it to you that L response has been to ask unions how to get round it, rather than how to comply with it?
AL: Meetings have been very, very vocal, about not changing current practice yet. Unions keen to wait for guidance.

Very very vocal about not changing current (men favouring, illegal) practice YET.

I think he's given away what has been bleeding obvious but unproven: that the whole 'waiting for guidance' nonsense is a cover over intention dissemination of instructions to continue to deny women their legal rights. Obviously in the hope of never having to do so.

He is proving the revolting sexism at the heart of all this, and exactly why this law is needed by women.

I do have some sympathies with these companies who all along have been given terrible advice and genuinely believed that TWAW was the law and have now been blindsided by the Supreme Court ruling. I would love to see some of them start suing Stonewall and the other groups that have made it their mission to spread their wrong interpretation of the law.

Me too. It was clear in the SP/NHS Fife case that any woman complaining would be punished. Totally kafkaesque that they use as part of their defence that no one complained when they made damn sure no one would complain.

Yes ^^ this

But they're digging in even now that they know what the law is and always was. I have no sympathy with companies who deliberately choose to pander to men and ignore women.

@GargoylesofBeelzebub

I don't have any sympathy. If it was a little company, fair enough, but this one employs thousands. They should know the employment law.

My DS is thinking about studying law. Im going to get him to read NC's cross-examination to see how it should be done!

They might have undergone security vetting but afaik that’s more about whether they’ve visited dodgy countries etc.

Naomi is back in the room

How can you complain about a policy you haven't been told about?
If it takes a year of asking to get a verbal confirmation of what practice even is...
Andy is deluded - had they openly consulted about men in the women's loos they would have found out but they didn't ask. They asked if women were OK with unisex loos and they were decidedly unhappy.... so that is an indicator really isn't it - unless Andy was previously lying and he actually believes someone can change sex... and these people are designing major security and weapons systems. This performance hasn't undermined their credibility at all....

There has been movement with Al's mic. Hopefully we will be able to hear him now.

I only skimmed bits of the previous threads, does anyone know which unions were involved in this shitshow? (Are there any which are vaguely fair towards women?)

Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Especially when you're talking about employment law and a large HR department.
Even worse. They now know the law but are trying to find a way around having to follow it.
And underlining all of this is not only a lack of care about women but actual contempt for women.

Judge back

Alas not

No, that was a vain hope!

As we await the afternoon session I thought I'd share some of the comments from TransReddit about the case.

"These people are so well organised it is unreal."

"We have known for years that they've been having secret meetings to plan how to hurt us."

"I’ve been dmed by one of the trans women who works with the woman from the piece. She said: “This news has obviously terrified me. In my time working for the company I haven't actually encountered any issues with being trans even from Maria. Everyone has been polite and friendly so now I'm feeling particularly betrayed."

"Trouble is Maria is after some quick cash, and is ignoring what this does to her career prospects."

"Ugh, Maria and her TERF kind are an ignorant lot aren't they? and their prejudice of us, is just completely undeserved, isn't it? But I also think a major lack of trust on their part is a big factor in their never ending prejudice."

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1nvgvz1/leonardo_uk_woman_used_secret_toilet_due_to_trans/