Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4

666 replies

ickky · 24/10/2025 09:14

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

Kelly vs Leonardo UK Ltd

Tribunal will consider workplace toilet provision

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 07:40

WeMeetInFairIthilien · 06/12/2025 07:28

The reverse.

Secondary school near me.

Two rooms, with a fire door, each containing 6 cubicals, one room male, one room female.

Use the toilet, leave the cubicle, walk to the door, push open the self closing fire door, walk across to a row of mixed sex sinks, in view of the rest of the corridor.

Originally, the two rooms didn't have a fire door, and were also open to the corridor and mixed sex, but the students self regulated into single sex areas, and complained lots and lots. So the doors were put on, and designated as male and female.

Workplace Regs apply to employers duties toward employees. In that way it won’t technically apply here. But I do want all examples to learn about this so thank you.

So the toilets were built and designed as mixed sex? With no doors and fully open to corridor. So if cubicle door opened everyone walking past can see into cubicle?

So the addition of the doors actually was after the fact?

I mean unless there are specific rules for schools (I saw something mentioned up thread) that sounds very unsanitary.

That said there is the cubicle toilet and another door so almost in line with the Regs.

WeMeetInFairIthilien · 06/12/2025 07:55

I can't upload a photo, server error, but yes, the toilets were originally designed to be mixed sex. The school was built in the early 2010s.

The sinks are on the partition with the corridor running alongside, so if you were washing your hands, you'd be looking at the wall, with the corridor in front of you. Two large openings onto the corridor at either end of the row of sinks.

When standing facing the sinks, behind you in a open space, and then the wall woth two fire doors in it. Originally, this was a wall with two large openings into 2 open areas of 6 (2 x 3) cubicles each. You could look from the corridor into the space in-between the cubicles, and under the floor gaps, but not into the cubicle, as the doors opened the other way.

After lots of complaints, the openings to the cubicle area were reduced, and fire doors installed.

I don't work there, but when we have inset days, I have to go there and use them. Normally, theu are just for the children, but on inset days they are the staff toilets, as there can easily be 500 staff (regional hub).

SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 08:56

WeMeetInFairIthilien · 06/12/2025 07:55

I can't upload a photo, server error, but yes, the toilets were originally designed to be mixed sex. The school was built in the early 2010s.

The sinks are on the partition with the corridor running alongside, so if you were washing your hands, you'd be looking at the wall, with the corridor in front of you. Two large openings onto the corridor at either end of the row of sinks.

When standing facing the sinks, behind you in a open space, and then the wall woth two fire doors in it. Originally, this was a wall with two large openings into 2 open areas of 6 (2 x 3) cubicles each. You could look from the corridor into the space in-between the cubicles, and under the floor gaps, but not into the cubicle, as the doors opened the other way.

After lots of complaints, the openings to the cubicle area were reduced, and fire doors installed.

I don't work there, but when we have inset days, I have to go there and use them. Normally, theu are just for the children, but on inset days they are the staff toilets, as there can easily be 500 staff (regional hub).

Well in that case as you’re there in a work capacity surely the toilets have to be in line with workplace regs. 😆

I think I am going to become a micro @Keeptoiletssafe person.

There’s lots of ratios re the toilet provision. I’m sure they are in breach of that.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 06/12/2025 09:05

SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 07:40

Workplace Regs apply to employers duties toward employees. In that way it won’t technically apply here. But I do want all examples to learn about this so thank you.

So the toilets were built and designed as mixed sex? With no doors and fully open to corridor. So if cubicle door opened everyone walking past can see into cubicle?

So the addition of the doors actually was after the fact?

I mean unless there are specific rules for schools (I saw something mentioned up thread) that sounds very unsanitary.

That said there is the cubicle toilet and another door so almost in line with the Regs.

I am sure there have been threads about this but I think a few new build schools had mixed sex toilets by design. I think that at the time of FWS there were some comments about schools having to modify their toilets.

According to this 1 in 4 schools have mixed sex toilets Shock https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ehrc-guidance-causes-trans-toilet-trouble-for-schools/

EHRC guidance causes trans toilet trouble for schools

Data suggests as many as one in four schools has mixed-sex toilets

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ehrc-guidance-causes-trans-toilet-trouble-for-schools/

SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 09:09

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 06/12/2025 09:05

I am sure there have been threads about this but I think a few new build schools had mixed sex toilets by design. I think that at the time of FWS there were some comments about schools having to modify their toilets.

According to this 1 in 4 schools have mixed sex toilets Shock https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ehrc-guidance-causes-trans-toilet-trouble-for-schools/

Edited

I know the schools are ok to have mixed sex for kids - as it’s different regs apply.

But when adults / workers are using the school for the purposes of a teacher training day as a workplace then it needs to offer single sex and reg compliant toilets surely.

Keeptoiletssafe · 06/12/2025 09:12

@SexRealismBeliefs Secondary school toilets have different rules. Then they throw out the rulebook. I wouldn’t start attempting to figure them out! However, they are good to study as they show exactly the problems when you do a range of mixed sex designs. I could summarise hazards into ‘drugs, dirt, disease transmission, voyeurism, sex, sexual assaults, fatalities, fire risks’. I have written a report which the ‘authorities’ are aware of and have had an official ‘can not comment’.

Personally, I think this has been a massive problem rumbling on far too long in schools and the FWS judgement brought it to a head. It’s now a huge national problem to sort out. However, children will be safer, because of FWS, in the future.

DrProfessorYaffle · 06/12/2025 09:13

SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 09:09

I know the schools are ok to have mixed sex for kids - as it’s different regs apply.

But when adults / workers are using the school for the purposes of a teacher training day as a workplace then it needs to offer single sex and reg compliant toilets surely.

I thought children 8 and over had to have single sex?

Keeptoiletssafe · 06/12/2025 09:23

DrProfessorYaffle · 06/12/2025 09:13

I thought children 8 and over had to have single sex?

So did I. There’s a very loose interpretation of ‘toilet facility’. It you want to know what happens when we don’t have single sex toilet provision, look at what has been going on in schools.

Edit to say: the ways tried by schools to ‘sort’ the problems of mixed sex cubicles include motion sensors, sound sensors linked to reception and vape sensors (the latter of which then have to be turned off at exam times).

Keeptoiletssafe · 06/12/2025 09:29

Regarding sound sensors: imagining farting and reception pipes up ‘are you ok?’. It’s supposed to be certain ‘noises’ that trigger it off.

prh47bridge · 06/12/2025 09:42

DrProfessorYaffle · 06/12/2025 09:13

I thought children 8 and over had to have single sex?

They do, unless the provision is in the form of lockable rooms for one person to use at a time. The non-statutory guidance from the DfE is worded in such a way that it appears to allow a setup where you have toilets in individual, lockable, secure enclosures with full height doors leading to a communal mixed sex washing area.

SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 09:50

Shortshriftandlethal · 05/12/2025 12:59

What is the likely timetable for the appeals process to be registered and then heard?

Edited

I think the parties have 42 days, or six weeks from receiving judgment to file an appeal.

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/12/2025 10:18

prh47bridge · 06/12/2025 09:42

They do, unless the provision is in the form of lockable rooms for one person to use at a time. The non-statutory guidance from the DfE is worded in such a way that it appears to allow a setup where you have toilets in individual, lockable, secure enclosures with full height doors leading to a communal mixed sex washing area.

But that arrangement is not what is required. There must be also separate washing areas.

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/12/2025 10:22

SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 09:09

I know the schools are ok to have mixed sex for kids - as it’s different regs apply.

But when adults / workers are using the school for the purposes of a teacher training day as a workplace then it needs to offer single sex and reg compliant toilets surely.

It is not legal for there to be mixed sex toilets and washrooms for children over the age of 8.

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/12/2025 10:23

SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 09:50

I think the parties have 42 days, or six weeks from receiving judgment to file an appeal.

And would the appeal be heard within that time frame or at a later date?

NoBinturongsHereMate · 06/12/2025 10:26

That's deeply unhygienic.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 06/12/2025 10:37

Sorry, quote fail - that was about having to go through fire doors to reach a sink.

RedToothBrush · 06/12/2025 10:41

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 06/12/2025 09:05

I am sure there have been threads about this but I think a few new build schools had mixed sex toilets by design. I think that at the time of FWS there were some comments about schools having to modify their toilets.

According to this 1 in 4 schools have mixed sex toilets Shock https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ehrc-guidance-causes-trans-toilet-trouble-for-schools/

Edited

What's the latest figures on sexual assaults in school toilets?

Haven't the been increasing?

It's almost as if people can't add 2+2 and have it equal 4, because they are too busy shouting "won't you think of 5's feelings?"

RedToothBrush · 06/12/2025 10:42

NoBinturongsHereMate · 06/12/2025 10:26

That's deeply unhygienic.

Poo Doors!

NoBinturongsHereMate · 06/12/2025 10:46

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/12/2025 10:23

And would the appeal be heard within that time frame or at a later date?

Later. Six week tonsaybyou want to appeal, then they have to finanslot in the court diary and give both sides time to prep. Months

NoBinturongsHereMate · 06/12/2025 10:53

Trying that again with my glasses on so I can see what I'm typing!

Later. Six week to say you want to appeal, then they have to find a slot in the court diary and give both sides time to prep. It will be months, not weeks.

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/12/2025 11:00

NoBinturongsHereMate · 06/12/2025 10:53

Trying that again with my glasses on so I can see what I'm typing!

Later. Six week to say you want to appeal, then they have to find a slot in the court diary and give both sides time to prep. It will be months, not weeks.

So we're probably looking around begining of April before it is heard.

Keeptoiletssafe · 06/12/2025 11:43

In The DfE non statutory School output specification School-specific brief: mainstream schools, some of the questions the school rep has to answer:
>if the school requires single sex or unisex toilets
>if the school has a specific requirement (with justifiable reasons) to not have the standard floor to ceiling cubicle systems
>What is the School’s ethos on supervision/privacy

Which means a school has to justify toilet door/partition gaps. In a school of around 1200 pupils there be around a dozen pupils that may sometimes have seizures, several more that have hypos and those with heart conditions. There will be those that have a one off seizure due to fever or drugs, girls who faint due to endometriosis and heavy periods or miscarriage. Many autoimmune and neurological conditions start in adolescence so many will be undiagnosed. There will be pupils that self harm in toilets. Girls who need toilet paper passing to them because of heavy periods.

If you are a teacher for several years all the above will not be news so I am at a loss as to why this was done. It goes against a wonderful government scheme that ensured all schools have a defibrillator because it is recognised pupils collapse and they have a chance of saving a life if used quickly enough.

However, the DfE have told me they do not hold risk assessments or equality impact statements for their designs in their department. They could not give me them.

Luckily it’s ‘guidance’. Many schools do not follow it.

Schools’ reasons to use these full height systems is often given as ‘inclusivity’. The DfE reason given for full height cubicles was because of phone cameras. This will be boys taking photos of girls because the toilets were mixed sex. Now what is happening is that boys are setting up hidden cameras in these mixed sex toilets instead because they are allowed to be there and it’s private. Teachers can’t tell who and how many are in the toilet cubicles and what they are doing. Boys have done revolting things to sanitary bins and free sanitary items which girls would never do.

Back to this judgement.

The judge doesn’t have to look very far from the location in this case to find lots of instances of toilet misuse and design problems in the workplace. I wonder what an inquiry will say about the poor man in the Edinburgh Council office toilets who died. I don’t know what the toilet design was in the Scottish Parliament where the MP put in a hidden camera but I would be more surprised if it wasn’t a floor to ceiling one. Hidden cameras are commonplace now and a private unisex space with vents for the mechanical ventilation needed, dryers, sinks to hide them is ideal.

Male behaviour is dictating non-domestic toilet design. It negatively affects the health and safety of the medically vulnerable, children and women the most.

prh47bridge · 06/12/2025 11:51

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/12/2025 10:18

But that arrangement is not what is required. There must be also separate washing areas.

Whilst I would agree that there should be separate washing areas, the regulations clearly do not require that. They say that schools must provide:

  • suitable toilet and washing facilities for the sole use of pupils
  • separate toilets for boys and girls aged over 8 unless the toilet is in a lockable room for use by one pupil at a time

Given that the regulation clearly differentiates between toilets and washing areas, with no requirement for washing areas to be single sex, I would expect the courts to find that a communal mixed-sex washing area with individual, lockable rooms containing toilets was in compliance.

SexRealismBeliefs · 06/12/2025 11:56

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/12/2025 10:23

And would the appeal be heard within that time frame or at a later date?

It will be assessed and if appeal to be heard scheduled. Would be a way off.