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

No we are not allowed to report live

I don't know when I was admitted to court as I went off to do things while I waited but I arrived back just as they were going for a 5 min break

Please take notes and tell us at the next break what NC said!

I have a particular interest in this case and I'm also gutted I'm missing NC.

Is it the same link and pin as last time? I can't find a recent email, only that from beginning of sept and link doesn't work now.

I have the pin, but if someone wants to om me the link, I'd be grateful.

@sassanach me too. But just noticed today's evidence will be uploaded by TT tomorrow - from TT on x :
'Also on Wednesday are the submissions for Kelly vs Leonardo UK Ltd. We will be taking notes (as if tweeting) as usual and then putting it out as a thread on
@tribunaltweets2
on Thursday.

I was sent a new email. I think the link and PIN were the same, as my desktop automatically added them.

NC is marvellous. Sound is clear.

So, R has claimed in submissions that there were sufficient toilets available. NC says that the PCP of allowing anyone to identify into them operates more harshly against women: as more vulnerable sex, with stronger modesty taboos, with need to undress more to use toilets. So arguments around sufficiency of provision is a distraction.

NC: commends Andy Letton and says a lot of what he gave should be taken v seriously (!)

NC emphasises personal details C had to recount to men in grievance meeting, failure over many months to get straight answers, in context of trans cognitive & cultural heist, not difficult to see why only one claimant raised concern - great courage needed to conmplain and should be reflected in award for injury to feelings.

Understand wish for this, but pls consider deleting as sharing link is forbidden.

NC: not clear whether unisex toilets suitable for 1992 Regs purposes because even though C can lock cubicle, she may still try to use toilet and find a man already there who hasn't locked cubicle before she walks in.

NC: Far fetched for R to say in submissions 1992 regs don't mean men and women as found in SC judgement.

NC: In any case, letting men use womens toilets created intimidating distressing environment for C.

(It's great getting to see judge's facial expressions. Nothing wild, just a bit pained from time to time)

(Naomi is sitting in front of an almost empty vast shelving unit on a day that I am in despair trying to find places for all my stuff - overwhelmed by jealousy and also hilarity imagining if all my crap were behind her on court camera)

NB: I am paraphrasing, pls do not rely on this as transcript, NC is speaking to R's submissions and as I haven't seen them, I am only v slowly processing what NC is saying, and am giving edited highlights that I may have misunderstood!

I expect she has sensibly cleared any shelves which might be in shot for reasons of confidentiality. It wouldn't do for observers to be able to see names on case files she's working on.

NC: undoubtedly TIMs have right to suitable space for their dignity, obvious answer is third spaces, pragmatic way of providing for TIMs is to give them access to accessible or disabled facilities. Recognise this may be unattractive proposition in some circles but for reasons of footfall, there will be smaller proportions of disabled and trans identifying staff, and single accessible toilets will often be overprovision (statistically because you round up to whole numbers). So any demands of Art 8 can be met by use of accessible toilets.

J: Do we have data for phase 1, 2 and specifically first floor where C worked. Can you tell me proportion of staff identifying as trans?

NC: at most 3 at phase 2

J: that doesn't help. Raising with you both.

NC: ONS figure 0.5% trans max

J: OK no more than 0.5% max in general population (and will check with ST). And 3 trans indivs on first floor. We are missing total number of staff on 1st floor.

NC: grounds of claim give an estimate

J: 150-200 desks but we don't know numbers working remotely.

NC: (whatsapping for details)

J: checking details

(After stress of Fife case it is actually nice seeing people working cooperatively without interruptions)

Sorry sound went, we will have to wait for ST to clarify numbers of staff (or for TT to report on thurs)

NC: C didn't raise concern in 2019 when colleague encountered TIM in toilets because she was afraid of being accused of transphobia, but did raise it within 36 housr when situation arose again in 2023. She was pressed on why she didn't raise concern earlier and is disappointing that R tries to cast doubt on truthfulness of account. She has tried to keep temperature low. At elaborate pains to run case dispassionately about the understanding of the law, which is why she asked for policy. Disappointing that R hasn't run case in same cooperative spirit- ask this is taken into account re: injury to feelings.

NC: everyone conducts lightning risk assessments all the time. C shouldn't have been put into position of having to risk assess every use and timing of visit to toilet and being put in this position was harassment in itself. Should have had reliable access to genuinely single sex toilet

NC: submission that C's position was ideological (because ?indivs not named?) and that R challenged truthfulness of C's position. NC invites R to withdraw that insulting allegation, and asks ST to begin concluding argument by withdrawing that.

NC: suggestion that claimant's only objection is ideological can be tied back to R's ideology that TWAW. Claimant's ordinary everyday acknowledgenent is that women and men are different and women stimes need privacy. This is not niche idea but reflects extent of R's ideology and shd be taken into account when assessing injury to feelings. C cruelly (kind of gaslighting) made to feel she is out on a limb when in fact makes v ordinary request.

NC: R challenges veracity of C's account. Unattractive in extreme to throw back at R her wholly credible choice to run case in impersonal manner

NC: C claims not on the encounter in the toilet as a specific harassment because she claims on policy, and has been at pains to keep individuals out of case.

J: C was aware form March 2022 that Tims were using womens facilities. First encounter was March 2023. Relevance is background to trigger, not a claim itself?

NC: yes

J: Ref to green book. Not relying on that incident in and of itself being relied on but the generality?

NC: Absolutely. And given Mr Letton's assertion that policy had been n place since as long as he could remember.

J: AL also said this was an employee led practice.

NC: I'm saying policy was applied, not plausibly as long as AL said it was applied, but certainly since 2019 incident.

I'm concerned that this thread will be pulled it the reporting continues.

NC: policy like this not only applied when an indiv uses toilet, but it applies all the time because women know they can never rely on what is written on door of toilet.

J: But policy was disseminated? Not just communicated to claimant?

NC: Must have been disseminated because a TIM used womens toilet in 2019 and then C encountered on in 2023.

NC: From that point C knew about PCP and it was applied to her from then on.

J: Disseminated in minutes

NC: Yes, if a time point is needed, but tacitly in place before then and employer responsible.

It shouldn't be. This isn't live reporting it's a summary of what went on this morning.

@NebulousSupportPostcard @unwashedanddazed I'm really appreciating the summaries but totally don't want thread to be pulled if it would be judged as reporting.

Happy to wait til TT publish their thread tomorrow if a better option- but as this is a summary of what went on this morning, not live reporting hope it's ok?

I'm watching it live. It's happening now.

It is okay nebules