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

Lockable is, as ever, subjective. I also think there’s grounds for discrimination against girls and those medically vulnerable with private cubicles. With 1 rape per day reported in a British school and Ofsted saying to schools you have to assume peer on peer sexual abuse is happening, I think mixed sex private cubicles should not be a standard design. The sinks could be argued too.

There used to be one school unisex toilet. It was designed to be at the entrance. Ideally situated near reception so it could be kept an eye on. This is when people put health and safety first. We have known the problems for years - it’s commonsense.

Here’s a thread about a workplace with single user full height doored cubicles and a mixed sex washing area:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5379551-unisex-toilets-in-new-office-dread-going-into-work?postsby=SocialMol

”Yes this is what it is - cubicles are floor to ceiling and then you exit to the sinks in the shared area”

Another one relevant to this case. Edinburgh does seem to be the epicentre of loo cases:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jz5ed7lv5o.amp

Why do children get single sex loos but adults don’t?

I’m not sure I agree that you can decouple single sex toilets from handwashing provision.

The single sex area needs to have a main door or private entrance that leads into a room with toilet cubicles. Per the regulations and guidance.

If sinks are within this area it is a single sex area. A random man can’t walk into the toilet room to access a sink because it’s a mixed sex sink.

Sorry re-read - school regs not workplace regs! Haven’t read them in full.

I think, but I’m not willing to bet my house on it, the visitors centre at Delamere Forest in Cheshire, last time I visited ( back in Spring so it might be different now) I’m pretty sure they’ve got single sex loos but mixed sex hand washing.
You go through an open door and it’s males to the left, females to the right, but as you come out it’s mixed sex sinks.

Just looping out into a different angle

the whole "not many women in the company" and "only one woman complained"

would that wash if it was
"not many black people in the company" and "only one black person complained"

thought not

Yes to the poo doors - all the female stuff hated using them.

The school I teach in, has traditional, single sex toilets, with cubicles and basins in the same room.
One (the boys) has had the door to the corridor taken off, because the boys used to keep punching holes through the wall, so that they could look into the girls toilets.

There was talk that this set of toilets was going to be made mixed sex, as the MAT demanded we had a set, but our Headmaster put the final veto on that, as a Biology teacher. We're seeing far few trans identify children (mostly NB autistic girls now), since the Headmaster made it clear that the changing rooms and toilets would stay single sex.

When people said I wonder why the government are taking so long to implement this, I did think about all these loo configurations and who is responsible and the problems with devolution.

In the case of schools, the DfE was repeatedly telling me all schools also should be following 1974 legislation (that the 1992 legislation was based on) so its the schools responsibility not theirs for health and safety in toilets.

If non-domestic venues and offices had followed building standards this wouldn’t be so much of a problem. At least in England, publishing Document T has made everyone aware that if you refurbish toilets or have a new building, the main provision is single sex. There’s no excuse. As I have said before, try asking Kemi Badenoch what she meant by single sex toilets, when she introduced Document T to the public.

Sorry - just saw this.

Can you do the reverse? Explain to me how the Regs & ACOP allows for multiple toilets within a room to be designated single sex but the sinks within that room can be considered mixed sex and complaint with the regs?

The sinks don’t have to be within the same room. Obviously if the sinks are in a single-sex room, that’s fine, but there’s no regulation that says they must be.

We have a couple of examples on this thread now of shared-sex washing facilities.

Brilliant news. Thanks from an ex-biology teacher! Bet they are thanking the headteacher now.

In my research of transgender preferences, most males want to use the females but most females want mixed. However, when the young women get their wish, there’s a dilemma about safety and hygiene so they go back to using the girls/womens. It actually causes a lot of distress. In the end the mixed more likely ends up with male users. If it’s the ‘private’ loo then men use it for a good long sit down with their phone.

This is the problem the Good Law Project have as they’ll be arguing for two sets of funders preferences, ironically different by sex. I can hypothesise Maugham wants to go down the mixed sex toilet route for the people he wants this for, but people like Robin Moira White and Victoria McCloud won’t like that.

The level of confusion about toilet provision is ridiculous. Workplace regs, health and safety, building regs prior to 2024, building regs post 2024, England, Scotland, Wales, NI etc etc.
This confusion is being exploited by TRAs.

If only Doc T could be made the go-to standard in all [relevant] environments:

In the first place, toilets must be separate and single sex, and clearly signed as such.

Accessible toilets should be provided, and 'ambulant' cubicles, with more space and some supports, can be provided in the single sex toilets for people who don't need all the adaptations in an accessible toilet.
If there is space, 'universal' mixed sex toilets are an optional extra, but they must follow the specifications of being enclosed, and containing handwashing facilities inside.
They are not a permissible alternative to single sex toilets unless the building is so small it can't accommodate them, in which case a 'universal' toilet is acceptable.

That's not confusing at all.

There is no "confusion"
there is deliberate and targeted lying by men who want acess to women's spaces.

This.

We've seen enough bullshit and deliberate misrepresentation about the truth before.

This mishmash of rules is an inevitable consequence of updating building standards and workplace regulations periodically (and it’s a good thing they get updated.)

Typically buildings are assessed according to the standards in force when they’re built, or refurbished.

i don’t think there would be a lot of support for forcing every employer and commercial landlord to refit to meet Document T. There aren’t enough plumbers and builders to get the job done in any reasonable time for a start, so what would happen?

In the absence of a mandatory reconstruction programme we are left trying to piece together different rules from different times, Even the 1992 regulations had to grandfather in compliance from the Factories Act 1961.

Also the workplace regulations cover and protect people who don’t work in naice office buildings; people who work outdoors, on building sites, on farms, and all sorts of places where toilet facilities that meet top notch standards aren’t practical to provide, so there has to be some flexibility.

Strong agree @MarieDeGournay
The only things I would add is that Document T didn’t add the specification for door gaps or discuss the advantages of them (as noted in the building standards at the time of the 1992 regs). The HSE has replied to me and said they take my points on board and that types C and D (single sex) are the only ones that can have door gaps, they are just not mentioned. All mixed sex should be enclosed. I would also add that if the universal design A and B is used as a single sex design, then the design can change to put door gaps in - though this is conditional on the area in front of the toilets being single sex too.

As a pp said to me once, it’s the area in front of the toilet cubicle that is important.

The exception would be in a medical environment. Now we have single sex wards, (even if there’s both sexes present in medical staff) I know it’s essential patients aren’t hidden.

Except of course, we only have “single-sex” wards: all NHS trusts allow (in fact insist on) self-ID, so are de facto mixed-sex, as our NHS audit determined.

I would like to nominate you for Minister of Toilets. Seriously, the government should be hiring you to advise them.

Seconded.

I take your points, MyAmpleSheep, and I know that the mishmash or rules has happened over a long period of time in different contexts e.g. building regs, health and safety etc..

And therefore I disagree with the suggestions that the confusion is solely the fault of TRAs - they have exploited apparent contradictions shamelessly, but not without some foundation in fact.

I would make the point though that 'forcing every employer and commercial landlord to refit to meet Document T' shouldn't be that much of a problem.
Doc T's requirements don't look very different from what has been the standard configuration for yonks: most public buildings already have separate men's and women's toilets, and have added accessible ones.

So the only employer and commercial landlords who would have to make drastic changes would be ones who decided at some point to make the expensive, disruptive and arbitrary decision to do away with single sex toilets, and make them all 'gender neutral'.

Any venue that chose to add gender neutral toilets to its existing single sex ones would have no problems meeting the requirements of Doc T.

I admit I may be over-simplifying a bit, but I don't care -it's an antidote to 'it's all so terribly confusing, it's easiest to make all toilets mixed sex'
I think I may change my username to Keeptoiletssimple

Yes and as the WRN found out, no one is collating the location and the number of sexual assaults in hospitals.

😍

I love keep toilets simple!

inside main wc cubicle provision:
No mechanical vents to hide hidden cameras, no dryers that can actually increase the pathogen load on your hands, no sinks that will collect the microbial plumes from toilet flushing. While we at it, a clause to put the sanitary bin in, then centre the toilet.

Go back to 1992 when there were single sex wc cubicles, whose doors and partitions started 15cm above the floor and space over the 2m door/partitions. You can hose the whole lot down with bleachy water if needed to keep everything clean.

There should also be a sign that states clearly about the penalties for voyeurism and sexual activity because I think people should be made aware. There’s certainly a lot of websites that should close.

Toilets should be as boring as possible.

Keep Toilets Boring!

Wha I don’t understand is that part of the legislation is that woke are entitled to sss toilets for our dignity.

what Maria kally’s work did disregarded her right to dignity.

Thr judge said something along the lines of it wasn’t that bad because she wasn’t assaulted? I’m glad, but that’s not the legal threshold. She should not have to be dealing with predators care menstrual issues in front of men. The law says so

Late to the party, but just wanted to give another example of toilets with-

• mixed sex cubicles
• with floor to ceiling doors.
• then a row of mixed sex washbasins just outside the cubicles, facing the wall.

This is in a secondary school.

Cubicles are navy blue with low level lighting to prevent antisocial behaviour, apparently. Unpleasant and claustrophobic, as well as unsafe.

Preteen DD and I used these toilets at weekends when we attended an activity at that school. They were never too busy as not a normal school day. But DD refused to consider this school as a secondary choice due to these toilets.

Now 16, she spent a day at a different school with the same setup for a different activity and simply did not visit the loo once in 8 hours! Too freaked out, she said.