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

Yes, quite

I can't believe someone sat through that tribunal and came to those conclusions

Such poor logic. How many demonstrations of the process being the punishment do there need to be for the judges to consider why so few people dare to speak up.

Edited due to my initial misreading.

Maya says Maria is planning to appeal (and reckons this will be overturned at appeal): https://x.com/MForstater/status/1996231530935353366

The result has come in very quickly. And lack of complaints does not mean agreement.

If it’s overturned at appeal, does that make it precedent in a way that it wouldn’t have been if it had been upheld at this stage?

Yes it’s binding - better this way

Very disappointing and extremely difficult to understand to anyone that followed the case closely.

Disgusting. And what about women who did not complain because 1) they did not dare 2) they did not KNOW ? Do they have to be submitted to seeing a bloke in a toilet which is supposed to be single sex in order for their lack of consent to be acknowledged? Do we have to be raped in order to say we don't like being raped and this should not happen anymore (sorry for exaggerating to make myself clear)

If 1 person (Maria) is 0.05% of the female workforce then the female workforce is 2000 women. If women are 20% of the workforce then the the whole workforce is 10,000 people. If trans staff are 0.5% of the workforce that is 50 people. Yeah, no, we didn't hear evidence that they had 50 trans staff.

Clearly the judge does not 'get' what the issues are. I do hope Maria can face the appeal process and I will be very happen to garden for this. A successful appeal would be very good in setting a precedent.

".....in the alternative, any disadvantage was minor and insignificant".

To quote Billy Connolly, "Oh, do you bloody think so?" I don't think someone taking it to a Tribunal is sitting there thinking it's a minor issue.

Crazy judgement, and I'll be tuning in for the appeal.

Does she have leave to appeal? Let's hope she does have the stomach for the fight- it's a battle being fought for all of us.

The respondent acted in compliance with Reg 20 throughout the relevant
period because it provided a sufficient number of toilets which complied

doesn’t seem to make much sense. Unless some were badged unisex toilets surely trans identified men could have used any of the them, meaning that they would no longer comply with Reg 20?

Employment judge seems a bit dense

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25670467.leonardo-engineer-loses-trans-row-toilet-policy-tribunal/

Sounds to me that the judge deliberately dismissed the claim so that someone else (EAT) would make the final binding decision on appeal. It might be for the best in the end.

WTAF? (Thanks for /transgender UK for noting this one)

"136. Even if the crime statistics can reliably be applied to female toilets being
accessed by trans women (whether public toilets or at work), it is much more likely that any assault (including sexual assault) will be committed by a
biological woman than a trans woman (96% of any assaults in the female
toilets will be committed by biological women and 4% by trans women given
that 99.5% of the facility users will be women and women commit 10% of
5 assaults and 0.5% of the users will be trans women and biological men
commit 90% of assaults"

This logic makes no sense to me , but then I am not a judge... This seems to be such an astonishingly (embarrassingly) bad judgement that I am worried I am missing something?

(Edit: spelling)

Too quick - its full of typos and lacks consideration. And clearly hasn't applied the law correctly but I am just going through it now.

An appeal is necessary so I'm happy Maria is going to appeal. I wonder if we need to garden for it?

I think its really badly drafted altogether - haven't got to that bit yet. One for @Keeptoiletssafe

Yes shes said she will appeal in the Herald and Sex Matters reported same.

Really sorry to read this. If you are reading, Maria, I just wanted to say again that you are brilliant and inspiring and we all love what you have done, and will be rooting for you all the way to the appeal. ❤

I will happily contribute to fund any appeal.

The arithmetic works, if the underlying stats and assumptions are true - a big if, of course. As follows:

If men commit 90% of assaults (is that all??), women 10%, this means a man is 9 times more likely than a woman to commit an assault. Say we have 1000 users of whom 995 are women and 5 men (i.e. 0.5% of users are male). Say each woman commits x assaults, so there are 995 woman-caused assaults, then each man commits 9x assaults, so there are 45 man-caused assaults. So in total there are 1040 assaults of which 995 are woman caused: 995/1040 is indeed 96% (rounding to nearest percent).

I still vividly remember the J's visibly confused face, and I thought at the time that she was someone who just had a face that displayed all of her 'workings out' as she was thinking. I'm sorry to see that the apparent confusion seems to have played out into the judgement.

So women commit 96% of the assaults despite being 99.5% of the assaulters

Men commit 4% of the assaults despite being only 0.5% of the assaulters

Still seems a high ratio given the amount of men who use the facility

"We wouldn't accept discrimination against employees with disabilities because only a small number had felt sufficiently confident to raise their concerns"

This was not the crux of the decision though was it?

Did the judge primarily say that the company is entitled to view an inclusive workplace as a "legitimate aim"

The 1 complaint and percentages seemed to be more of a rebuttal of the "rights of the many trump the few"

As posters gave said whether this is reasonable will be decided on appeal...