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

This is where I feel let down by judges! I expect them to rule on the basis of the law, the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and the principle - not whether more that 0.5% of people raised an objection.

'Yes Your Honour I admit I stole a lot of jewels from Hatton Garden, but not many people complained or raised a concern, and they even made a film about us..'

'Oh well in that case, you're free to go..'

What about the principle, rather than whether or not people raise a concern?

Will be really interested to hear what Naomi and SM etc say about this

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69303e1bcdec734f4dff4197/B_M_Kelly_v_Leonardo_UK_Limited_-_8001497.2025.pdf

Do we know what the wider implications will be? Does this just apply to a specific workplace scenario? And the judge ruled their policy was lawful because they also provided single occupancy toilets so there was no discrimination in this case?

So angry that women's rights are deemed only worthy of respect if enough women complain to get them. Nope, they exist whether or not women are brave enough to complain when they are trampled over. Hopefully the appeal will be lodged and sense prevail. Poor Maria, makes a mockery of the law around single sex spaces.

Yes, especially when we know that many women are either too afraid to say anything or are gaslit into "being kind".

Wow. Gutting.
hi ho hi ho
it’s off to appeal we go

Surely you can’t make judgements on how many people complain. It’s like someone in the office making sexist jokes. Everyone but one person maybe okay with this sort of banter but it doesn’t mean it’s acceptable and that the one person shouldn’t have the right to complain.

Appeal needed with @jophoenix to explain in small words how women react differently to men and self exclude rather than complain.

Given how women are continually treated by the courts, it's no bloody surprise.

Agreed.

If children don't complain about child abuse, does that make it ok?

I mean, seriously. This argument is beyond ridiculous. And opens up any group to intimidate another in order to break the law.

I can’t get my head round how wrong the judgement is. I really hope this goes to appeal. If it does I can supply lots of case studies to demonstrate the judgement is wrong.

What a load of bollocks.

Particularly when you consider the pressure that women have been under in other cases to withdraw their complaints. Does anyone have the numbers at Darlington that were part of the process at the beginning vs those who were there at the end?

... https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1pd63zm/kelly_v_leonardo_ltd/

I think it Alison Bailey's recent hearing where Ben Cooper suggested that if they were talking about any other protected characteristic they wouldn't be sitting there. It's the same here.

Disappointing. I'll have a read over the judgement later, or if the dentist is running late I could use some reading material this afternoon.

I hope the judge has time to reflect on this report. https://iipcv-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/E03342246_Angiolini-Inquiry-Pt2_Accessible.pdf in relation to his judgement.

This must be taken to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The reasons given within the ruling seem extraordinarily weak. We wouldn't accept discrimination against employees with disabilities because only a small number had felt sufficiently confident to raise their concerns. Particularly as this was within an, apparently, extremely hostile organisational environment. I would happily contribute to the costs of this appeal.

As the superior court, EAT decisions create a legal precedent that all other Employment Tribunals must follow in similar cases. So this opens up a major opportunity.

Plus. If I worked for Leonardo, I would be alternately spitting flames of wrath and fluorescent bile at this result. It will hopefully encourage more of their unhappy women employees to bravely come forward.

The judgement seems to rest on the idea that there were "sufficient" unisex single-use facilities (but even there, there was this weird double-door thing, right?) - but without knowing how many women were unwilling or unable to share with men, how would any organisation know they had sufficient? Clearly you can't rely on how many women put their head above the parapet to complain. There also seems to be a suggestion that the judge bought the idea that it's all fine because the individual cubicles in the now mixed-sex "ladies" lock, which is just unbelievable. Sigh. I hope it gets appealed, otherwise, as the redditors crowing observe, we'll be back at it being fine for anyone to offer "trans inclusive single sex" facilities provided they also have a unisex single room or two.

IANAL but it seems to me there is scope for appeal on points of law in that judgement. If Maria is up for it. I’m sure NC and CE would be.

Do i recall the lawyer for thhe claimant being male and not that well versed on the issue?

Surely lack of complaint is not the same as agreeing with.
Especially on this topic whereby complaint often results in being suspended etc.
Plus surely then toilets should be appropriately signed.

No, you're thinking of the Darlington nurses. This was Naomi.

O.K! And the judge...was there an inkling that they didn't get it?

Anyone know the difference between tribunal decisions made in Scotland (this one) and the impact on England and Wales. AI seems to suggest there is a difference on what is binding and what is not. Completely clueless what this all means and not trusting of AI.

Don't think first-tier ETs set precedent either in England & Wales or in Scotland - only EATs do.

edit: pressed post accidentally