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

Do we know what Sara’s case consists of, in outline? My expectation is that it’s similar, but different enough to showcase the breadth of harm done to women by this nonsense. I don’t think there’s anything random about the choice of cases being brought forward.

I like the expression “nervy nelly”.

What is this case about ?

There's more about it here.

https://freespeechunion.org/jk-rowling-backs-ni-womans-bid-to-sue-employer-over-gender-critical-belief-discrimination/?v=0b3b97fa6688

Thanks Vegemite

Another gig for NC and Charlotte Elves. Apparently JKR paying the costs from her fighting fund. I still can't believe these organisations aren't trying to settle given the clarification of the law on 16th April. The more hearings that come, the more press coverage surely? Is it really worth the reputational damage? Amazing!?

That sounds like an important case. Am I right in thinking there are differences in NI equality law, and does anyone have any knowledge?

I think the equality act 2010 does not apply in NI, so its things like the disability discrimination act etc still in place. Which makes it interesting if they can't claim misunderstanding the EQA as their excuse...
There should probably be a separate thread for Sara's case so we don't get derailed?

I have a vague feeling I’ve already donated to that one! So many of them, I forget. I was better off than I expected for a couple of years, so tended to give £25 to any worthy case that came to my attention.

There is a mumsnet thread about Belfast Film Festival, although it's possible there may be a later one. www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4991660-sara-morrison-vs-belfast-film-festival

Ooh - Belfast. I might be able to see that in person!

I don't think witnesses would be routinely informed of the opponent's legal team. It's easy enough to find out the info, but I doubt most people would think it relevant - they'd assume a barrister's a barrister (we know differently, but we're not exactly representative of the general population). There's no excuse for not even reading the claim, though.

Correct. The EA 2010 doesn't directly apply here. But Stormont did confirm that NI should nonetheless follow the SC ruling, even though it means applying it to different legislation.

I still can't believe these organisations aren't trying to settle given the clarification of the law on 16th April. The more hearings that come, the more press coverage surely? Is it really worth the reputational damage?

How much press coverage is there? And what angle do various media outlets adopt even when they do cover cases ? <cough> BBC <cough>

Also, what proportion of the population get their news from traditional media anyway?

There's a PhD thesis in there for someone. Of course, that someone would need to find an academic institution that would allow such a project - not easy I imagine, when the HE sector is so captured.

The NI legislative background (pre-SC ruling) is set out here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4991660-sara-morrison-vs-belfast-film-festival?reply=132470780&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Interesting thought! Maybe another case against a university who said no?!

The coverage was woeful up to the start of this year - I knew nothing until Peggie and that was through MN I accidentally discovered it. And the threads on that showed me how bad the coverage was and how the words were manipulated.

However as the year has gone on, there maybe isn't a huge amount of coverage but there is some. And it does seem to be getting more accurate. Slowly - the Kelly articles on the BBC looked almost balanced!

This month we will have Darlington 22nd for 3 weeks, Kelly back for part 2 from 22nd and Linehan from 29th. A critical mass is building and on top of the Peggie case which has definitely cut through, I am hoping covering will increase. But it is an uphill battle while the BBC Style guide is in full force. Let's hope Nick Wallis can make inroads into that over the next year or two...

AH, but this way they can blame the nasty terfs for forcing them to comply with the law rather than simply getting on and doing it. Is it me or are more and more people saying 'I don't like the law so I won't follow it?' Or is it the same multi-tentacled group? (With apologies to all multi-tentacled beings who may be offended by that attitude.)

It’s baffling. It’s an area completely outside my experience and this aspect really intrigues me.

Is it normal for someone in his position to do so little preparation? Based on his previous experience of tribunals, what was he likely expecting here?

Is this case very different to a normal tribunal? And/or is Naomi Cunningham‘s brilliantly thorough and incisive approach unusual in this setting?

Did he expect MK’s case to be so weak/shallow that he could just coast his way through?

There's an obvious strategy that's open to these organisations that they haven't twigged yet.l, which sees them comply with the law and carefully manage those who flout it.

They should follow the law:

• SSS for each biological sex,
• neutral/third spaces for the trans identifying folx where facilities and space allow,
• trans folx can use the facilities of their biological sex.

If individuals insist on using the opposite sex facilities, then the individual is breaking the law, not the organisation.

Liability shifts from the employer to the transgressive employees, just as we rarely see companies being blatantly racist or homophobic these days, but individuals are racist or homophobic.

It is illegal to fire someone for being trans. That is a basic protection under the Equality Act 2010. But if a trans individual has been clearly informed that they must use the facilities of their biological sex or the third spaces, they can be fired for persistently refusing to follow a management instruction.

Probably thinks the less he knows, the better

The liability still rests with the employer to prevent individuals using the opposite sex facilities. It's one of the claims against NHS Fife that they permitted Dr Upton to sexually harass Sandie Peggie by using the female changing room.

Is it me or are more and more people saying 'I don't like the law so I won't follow it?'

I think the captured groups, of which there are many, are saying this.

But I think there are an awful lot more people out there who are saying "Thank goodness, we no longer have to pretend that Transwomen are women. We can begin to speak out. We can begin to insist on appropriate behaviour."

We’re going to have a bit of a logjam of tribunals later this month. I’ve asked for observer access for Darlington nurses as I’ll be around and as I WFH I’ll be able to listen in around meetings. What’s the etiquette around these tribunal threads? @ickky and @nauticant have done sterling work hosting threads and was wondering if one of you was planning to do Darlington too?

As I’ll be around I can do it but I don’t want to tread on anyone’s toes if there’s an established rota or something.

Thank you for letting us know about the Sara Morrison case in NI next month.

I read an early tweet from JKR that she’s donating towards the legal expenses. In some newspapers it says that she’s contributing, but in others the headlines from over a year ago say that she’s bankrolling it.

If I go to the gardening supplies store the figures there indicate that she’s still 20% short of the stretch target. I tried just now, and it would let me give a few carrots.

While I appreciate that JKR’s fund understandably offers support to certain good causes without specifically saying so publicly, is there still a need to garden?

I wonder if KJK will be asked to give evidence in Sara's tribunal - she will be able to give a very clear overview of the difficulties women trying to speak have had and the bulying and harassmentthat results.

I also wonder if the footage from the event will be played? I've just had a watch and the speakers were fantastic. It's clear there are protesters trying to drown it out which would undermine any defence by employer's that there aren't bullying and silencing tactics at play.

@Octoberaddsagale I thought "I donated" was just a pithy way of saying JKR Fund has taken on the case.

I dont think the fund had been set up at that point.

As the garden is still open, I would assume more carrots are needed.