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

It was a slam dunk. The judge is trans captured and shouldn’t be given more cases.

Except of course she has.

Indeed. And for once women don't even need to donate. 😁

Thank you!

That pleasant thought had occurred to me. And makes it even more delicious

An appeal was filed early Jan I think-

https://www.employmentbarrister.co.uk/eat/how-long-does-an-employment-appeal-tribunal-appeal-take-from-start-to-finish

The main stages and approximate timescales are: lodging the appeal (within 42 days of the written reasons being sent), the paper sift (approximately four to five months), the Rule 3(10) hearing if required (an additional three to four months), and the full hearing (approximately six to nine months after permission is granted). These are estimates based on recent practice and are subject to variation.

So anything from 14 months to 18 months maybe?

Justice 🤯

And employers keep on breaking the law.

Thank you @SexRealismBeliefs . That was a very comprehensive dismissal .

I especially liked this section responding to claims that women safeguarding their toddler sons by taking them into toilets etc allows a middle aged man access as well:

"The example of the mother taking her young son to use the female lavatory is a bad example. That (and the corresponding practice for fathers and young daughters) is a common practice but is no more than a facet of ordinary parental responsibilities".

And this knocks on the head the insistence of all the sad people that employers will need to police toilets:

"The notion that an employer or anyone else is required to “police” the use of a lavatory, person by person and day by day, reveals the application of a “logic” so strict that it is divorced from reality and from any sensible model of human behaviour." 😂

Thanks, @MrsOvertonsWindow . I didn't read the whole judgement but that line about policing stood out to me as well. It couldn't be any clearer 😁

Yes, and I have collated real-life incidents which show exactly why these are sensible for safeguarding.

I posted this on another thread, but it’s great so I’m going to share here too:

Re the “how would we ever police this?” arguments, Victoria Smith has series of X posts where she says that these were the same arguments made when marital and date rape were being considered for criminalisation:

Victoria Smith@glosswitch
38m

A really significant moment for me as a young feminist was realising I'd grown up in a country where it was legal for men to rape their wives. I was 16 when making it illegal was being "debated"

Arguments in favour of doing nothing were very similar to ones against taking date rape seriously. How would you prove it? Wouldn't measures taken to prove it spoil relationships? What do you want, contracts, cameras everywhere?

The same tactics are being deployed against women having spaces of their own. How will you prove it? What do you want, genital inspections? We know that often we can't prove the things men did to us in a way that would lead anywhere.

It still matters to have a standard that men are expected to adhere to. It's remarkable how many men want us to think they wouldn't transgress but are passionate in their desire for it not to be illegal to do so.