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

That's useful to know. Thank you. In films and TV there are often encounters between male protagonists while at a grimy workplace urinal. They only need shout through a cubicle door if he's (cough) not there to urinate. So I assumed that was the standard workplace toilet layout. And weirdly I never thought to ask!

If the building's toilets don't have urinals in the men's, that would make it easier to justify a policy that all males (including trans women and non-binary males) should use the men's toilet. It's a place of work, so the fear of violence from a fellow male colleague should be next to zero.

I agree this needs its own thread to think through all the angles. Someone who knows more than me on this topic should probably start one?!

Playing devil’s advocate what should be the title?:
Do women in wheelchairs have rights to single sex spaces?
Women’s rights to single sex spaces - are disabled females counted as women?
Should you lose rights to single sex spaces when you lose use of your legs?

Putting it bluntly doesn’t sound very nice but shows why disabled women can get upset. They don’t have single sex spaces now and other women think is fine is to put more people in their toilets. There is not an easy answer but it’s all linked as the common denominator is women’s rights - dismissing it as ‘irritating’ isn’t pleasant.

Sorry i do not think the issue is irritating at all, or where it has arisen, just think it needs its own place on the feminism board now

I would say the headline should be about why disabled spaces should not be the answer to trans identifying peoples needs or something like that.

But i do not want to presume to insert myself as an advocate as i am not disabled in a way that would require specialist facilities.

As an aside i personally believe that peoples biological sex is the determinate to what facilities they use and personally i do not care that it might bother people who don't like their sex. (Trans)

what society does about transexuals toilet needs if anything at all is not a feminist issue

trying to park transexuals into disabled spaces, as well argued here is a feminist issue.

that is why a thread of its own is pertinent.

Ok. I see it differently as I know disabled women in wheelchairs who are able to transfer onto a toilet by themselves, so I am seeing it as all related to women’s rights if their access is compromised. The state of disabled toilets is the worst provision because there is no choice of cubicle for these women and girls (or disabled boys and men).

At a theatre recently I went to use a disabled toilet in my wheelchair and was (very nicely) redirected by a man who pointed out that it was the disabled toilet for the men (next to their standard facility entrance) and the women's was around the corner. So there is some sexed provision in places, and it was interesting that men quickly stepped in to redirect, sex clearly mattered to them even in the use of a single closed room.

Your suggestion will lack accurate data to support it sufficiently. Poor data in leads to poor management decisions. Part of my support for SSS has been to challenge data collection processes.

It's not the case in the Leonardo buildings, though. They said in evidence that the reason for making the women's mixed sex but not the men's was because of the urinals.

Oh how wonderful! This is something I have never seen personally. I have always been in mixed sex (as the assistant for different people).

I think M&S in Aberystwyth has a dedicated female disabled toilet. Although as I didn't use it there's just a vague impression of me walking past one on the way to the rest of the women's toilets. So, if you feel moved to pop over there to check out this wonder, don't blame me if I've misremembered 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

But we are where we are! I agree it would be ideal to have Men's, Women's, Disabled (Men's), Disabled (Women's) & a Gender Neutral. But, I've never worked in (or even visited!) an office with that level of toilet provision.

A common configuration is Men's, Women's and one single-room Disabled Toilet for use by men & women. Which, I understand is not ideal, as a single sex facility is preferred by many (the majority?) of female wheelchair users.

So what is the reasonable adjustment here for organisations/building managers who currently have the above toilet configuration? Factors as to what will be considered reasonable will include cost, practicability, effectiveness and the resources available to the organisation.

Requiring all trans women to use the men's toilet, may not be legally possible. Allowing (some?) trans women to use the communal women's toilet will mean women potentially sharing the same enclosed space, at the same time, with males. This isn't the case with a one-person self-enclosed room, though there are other concerns, of course.

What would you see as being an achievable cost-effective solution here? If it's mandating all ladies toilets should be required to convert 3 of the cubicles into one cubicle big enough for a wheelchair, that is going to be a very tough sell!

(A wheelchair accessible toilet cubicle is significantly larger than a standard one, typically around 2200mm x 1500mm, compared to a standard cubicle of 800mm x 1500mm. This significant extra width allows for features like outward-opening doors, extra grab rails, and space for a turning circle.)

@KitWyn Requiring all trans women to use the men's toilet, may not be legally possible.

Why? The Supreme Court says people should use the toilet of their birth sex. Thats the law. If other (mixed) provision is available, they can use that as well, but I don't see why it shouldn't be "legally possible" to make them use the men's.

Requiring all trans women to use the men's toilet, may not be legally possible.

Why not?

Allowing (some?) trans women to use the communal women's toilet

That's the one that's not legal.

What about changing places toilets?

Plus it is not uncommon to have an opposite sex carer - many carers are spouses for example.

If there's a gender-neutral one-room disabled toilet, it's going to be hard to justify an organisational/building policy that excludes a trans woman from using this. It's by definition, NOT a communal single-sex space.

Particularly when there may be no (or very few) employees with a relevant disability on that floor/in the building. Plus, as it is 'gender-neutral' it is already used by both women and men, but individually, at different times?

Ah - you mean requiring them to use the men's only and never any available unisex options; not men's rather than women's.

Yes, that would be trickier - although if you could demonstrate it was disadvantaging those with a genuine need for the accessible ones it might be possible to write it into company policy. Very difficult to enforce, though.

New thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5432466-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-4

Thanks for setting up the new thread.

Ta and tata.

In a big modern office situation I expect you already have ambulant at the end (slightly bigger, handrails, shelf, outward opening door).

It is a difficult situation to balance needs. And I agree in part. However venues and schools have been tearing out their single sex toilets and replacing them with a hotch potch of designs. Schools in particular, are fond of completely private unisex cubicles with a toilet inside then unisex trough sinks outside the cubicles. Horrendous for girls and medically vulnerable.

Rows of universal toilets are not cost effective. Plumbing, extra ventilation, equipment for each cubicle, more time cleaning (no gaps to do a quicker mop), bigger so you can’t fit as many in. Queues will be bigger and the turnaround is slower (people can’t access the next loo while someone is washing their hands, or putting make-up on or other things in a private space). This has not stopped venues adding them at great cost.

Far better, if you are spending all that money, to have ann option of disabled toilets (with a healthier, safer design) that are single sex within the single sex area. And a mixed sex disabled toilet but one that is closely monitored.

For instance in the Barbican. Which last time I looked was planning on reducing women’s provision by nearly a third, men’s by a quarter and increasing unisex by 1200%. They were adding 2 more unisex accessible toilets.

That is not user friendly, cost effective, or practical for all users. Women will be queueing for the last few women’s toilets left or more likely compromising to use a toilet design proven to be less safe and less hygienic.

What about in the Barbican: Single sex with ambulant and disabled designs (all with door gaps for health and safety 150mm floor to door and gap over a 2000mm door).
Then mixed sexed private disabled toilets in highly visible areas (like unisex toilets opposite reception desks you often see in school design). And a changing places toilet.

Advantages: users, including frail and disabled can be seen if they have collapsed. Sex based inclusivity and for anyone suffering a medical emergency. Inclusive for medically vulnerable including millions with conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy and heart conditions. Ventilation improved. Wilful misuse including assaults within the cubicle reduced or prevented, hygiene improved as you can easily soak the floor and let it drain.

edit to include multiple unisex disabled loos. I am writing hastily as thread about to finish. It’s really good to be thinking about toilet combinations and how they affect all users. My radical idea is a unisex area with door gaps too. Same design as traditional toilet blocks but with the door gaps for health and safety, prevention of misuse etc. Be interesting to see how that went in practice!

Unisex with door gaps are a gift to voyeurs.

Yep that’s why even single sex designs have lost the door gaps as it became more ambiguous who was outside the cubicle door. Since you have to be able to have a quick release mechanism from the outside for safety, it’s led to an unsafe combination of insecure, private mixed sex cubicles.

Ending

The

Thread

Now