1 godzina temu
An engineer at defence giant Leonardo UK has lost her employment tribunal case alleging sex discrimination and harassment over sharing women's toilets with transgender colleagues. Employment Judge Michelle Sutherland dismissed all of Maria Kelly's claims in a judgment published Wednesday, prompting Kelly to announce her intention to appeal.
Kelly, who works as a people and capability lead at the aerospace defence company's Edinburgh office, raised the issue after encountering a transgender colleague in a female bathroom in March 2023. She had first noticed a transgender person using female toilets in 2019 but did not raise the issue earlier due to fear of being labeled "transphobic."
The tribunal heard Kelly's case in October. She had lodged a formal grievance with Leonardo UK, which the company rejected in August 2024. Leonardo adopted a policy stating "any individual, living in the gender with which they identify, even if they have not undergone or do not intend to undergo medical or surgical procedures, is entitled to access the facilities of the gender by which they identify" following external legal advice prompted by Kelly's detailed questions.
Judge's Ruling
Judge Sutherland ruled there was no "disadvantage" resulting from Leonardo UK's policy. In her written judgment, she noted that "one out of 9,500 employees raised a concern about the impact of the policy despite multiple means to do so."
The judge concluded that "Any fear or privacy impact could be addressed by affected female staff making recourse to the single occupancy facilities." She deemed a biological-sex-only rule for toilets "unworkable," stating users likely won't know another toilet user's biological sex.
On assault risk, Judge Sutherland wrote: "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 assaults and 0.5% of the users will be trans women and biological men commit 90% of assaults)."
She ultimately ruled the toilet access policy was "[...] a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."
Criticism and Appeal Plans
Kelly expressed disappointment after the judgment. "I am disappointed by the judgment, which I believe fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case," she said.
She announced her intention to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. "I intend to appeal, and I will ask the EAT (Employment Appeal Tribunal) to consider expediting my appeal as the decision risks further confounding the already widespread misunderstanding and defiance of the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland," Kelly stated.
Maya Forstater, chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, criticized the judgment sharply. "This judgment interprets the law as transactivists would wish it to be, and is incompatible with the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland in several places," she said. "It is incredible that even after the highest court in the land has ruled that the law recognises men and women in terms of biological sex, there are lower courts still trying to see the world in terms of gender identity."
Legal Context
The case comes months after the UK Supreme Court ruled in April that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex. That ruling in the For Women Scotland case forms a critical backdrop for the tribunal's interpretation of sex and gender identity.
We contacted Leonardo UK for comment.
Note: This article was created with Artificial Intelligence (AI).
