Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4

[ickky]

The Tribunal has now finished and we await the judgement.

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

Thread 3
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5421183-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-3

What do we think the odds of this case are?

Grok tells me "Drawing from similar cases (e.g., ~80% success rate for claimants in gender-critical employment disputes since Forstater, per analyses from groups like Sex Matters), I'd assess Kelly's odds of a full win (liability on at least one claim, plus compensation/policy remedies) at 75–85%. A partial win (e.g., harassment upheld but discrimination dismissed) is possible (~15% chance), with a full loss unlikely (<10%). If successful, awards could range £10,000–£50,000+ in compensation, plus costs.
This is an informed estimate, not a prediction—tribunals weigh evidence holistically. For deeper analysis, see Sex Matters' case briefing. Watch for judgment announcements via Tribunal Tweets."

I am keen for as many slam dunk, public cases as possible to happen so everywhere else (schools for me!) get with the programme.

I'd like sanity to be restored and for every woman who's been forced to share a changing room with a man to be compensated and receive an apology.

Dont see how Leonardo can possibly win but the award of damages may be small.

The damages are already enormous and growing.
Reputationally

i agree - the more of these successful highly public employment tribunals, the better.

Also think Maria Kelly will win, she did everything right and followed the process. I’m still surprised Leonardo didn’t settle as they had no convincing arguments. Horrible to put Maria through all that.

I’m a bit behind with this - did the judge seem captured? I saw a comment somewhere else that she’d given NC à hard time?

@Largesso go to open justice substack they have published Naomi’s verbal submissions in full.

it is a glory to behold she deals with judicial capture in it.

for me it was like reading Ripley from aliens with her flame thrower laying the enemy to waste.

Do they have her speaking notes in full, or just the TT summary? I've found the latter, which is an excellent read, but it would be even better to see the full version without the abbreviations and missed bits.

The TT summary does include then judge's questions, though, which are interesting.

I love this description.

NC is such a strong warrior!

How do they decide comp? I think she deserves all of it; they humiliated her and didn’t care about that I. Order to appease the men in frocks

Does anyone have sight of Maria Kelly’s grounds of claim? On the Friday morning Naomi Cunningham took the Leonardo witness (Andrew Letton?) through 6 general statements which she said were in the grounds of claim and which she asked him to agree were true. She didn’t read all of them out so they’re not all in TT. They included things like women subject to greater taboos around modesty and women having a greater need for privacy.

Are we thinking before or after Christmas for the result?
Feels like there is a bit of a nail biting time coming up.

Here is a link to the google docs of the last 2 days of oral submissions.

drive.google.com/file/d/1IJQcv1Em3zCT9TSJ_Ob5IdkNSRb9YBVy/view

drive.google.com/file/d/1YDdBxGWnX1n9Vw73yuXc743qq5oUZXOi/view

drive.google.com/file/d/1gcOSntKiuHMU-rmc3Rx3rUQlqSAwlYmO/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JaFkLyh4aLssRXlDZDApl07RNcQSq37C/view

Has anyone else seen this?
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/b-m-kelly-v-leonardo-uk-ltd-8001497-slash-2024

this is a setback, appeal?

Having had a very quick scan this is very disappointing. Will need to read more to try and understand the reasoning

I’d say that has ‘appeal’ written all over it!

Summary of the judgement (GROK generated)

Leonardo (the employer) won completely – all of Maria Kelly’s claims were dismissed.

The judge accepted that “sex” in the Equality Act and the Workplace Regulations now means biological sex only (thanks to For Women Scotland 2025).

BUT the judge said the company’s policy of letting people use toilets according to their gender identity is still lawful because:
there were proper cubicles + single-occupancy options,
no actual incidents or complaints from anyone else,
the claimant’s fear was treated as “ideological” rather than a real detriment to her personally.

In short: biological sex is the law, but employers can still let trans-identified staff use opposite-sex toilets if they think it’s “proportionate” and provide some alternatives.

Massive blow for workplace single-sex spaces – basically says self-ID is still okay in private companies as long as they’ve got a cubicle and say they’re being inclusive.

Expect an appeal to the EAT, but for now this is being treated as the current position in England & Wales (Scotland may differ).

Seems nonsensical

Statements like this in the judgement seems very problematic to me?

"The claimant submitted that it was disproportionate to sacrifice the dignity and
privacy of all female staff (20% of the workforce) to protect the interests of a
5 tiny minority of trans staff (0.5 % of the workforce). However only 0.05% of
the female workforce had complained or raised a concern about the policy
(i.e. the claimant) and it cannot therefore be said that all women considered
that their dignity and privacy had been sacrificed."

I very much hope that it is appealed.

Awful 😞

The judgement is wrong. There are sections such as 135-137 that can be demonstrated to be wrong.

If there’s an appeal, very happy to help.

Bugger and Arse.