An engineer who took aerospace large Leonardo UK to an employment tribunal for having to share girls’s bathrooms with transgender colleagues has misplaced a discrimination declare.
Maria Kelly alleged harassment associated to intercourse, direct intercourse discrimination and oblique intercourse discrimination.
Ms Kelly took motion after lodging a proper grievance with the corporate.
The tribunal was heard in Edinburgh in October, however all of her claims have now been dismissed by employment decide Michelle Sutherland.
Ms Kelly stated she believes the end result “fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case”, as she introduced plans to attraction.
In a written judgment revealed on Wednesday, Ms Sutherland stated Leonardo UK’s place was that “one out of 9,500 employees raised a concern about the impact of the policy despite multiple means to do so”.
She discovered there was no “disadvantage” because of the coverage.
Ms Sutherland added: “Any fear or privacy impact could be addressed by affected female staff making recourse to the single occupancy facilities.
“Any impact on danger of assault arising from 0.5% of males utilizing the ladies’s bathrooms as an alternative of the boys’s bathrooms wouldn’t have modified the general danger profile throughout rest room services typically.
“In the circumstances of this case, the toilet access policy was in the alternative a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
The case adopted the UK Supreme Court docket judgment in April which dominated the phrases “woman” and “sex” within the 2010 Equality Act seek advice from a organic lady and organic intercourse.
Ms Kelly, individuals and functionality lead for the agency, had advised the tribunal she started utilizing a “secret” rest room at her office after encountering a transgender colleague in a feminine toilet in March 2023.
She stated she had first develop into conscious of a transgender individual utilizing the feminine bathrooms in 2019 however didn’t increase the difficulty with the corporate on the time as she feared being labelled “transphobic” or being placed on the “naughty list”.
Ms Kelly stated: “I am of course disappointed by the judgment, which I believe fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case.
“I intend to attraction, and I’ll ask the EAT (Employment Attraction Tribunal) to contemplate expediting my attraction as the choice dangers additional confounding the already widespread misunderstanding and defiance of the Supreme Court docket’s judgment in For Girls Scotland.”
Maya Forstater, chief govt of charity Intercourse Issues, stated: “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.
“It’s unimaginable that even after the best court docket within the land has dominated that the legislation recognises women and men by way of organic intercourse, there are decrease courts nonetheless attempting to see the world by way of gender id.”
Leonardo UK acknowledged the tribunal’s judgment.
A spokesperson for the firm added: “We recognise that the method has been demanding for everybody concerned and we admire the professionalism proven by colleagues who supported the proceedings.
“Our focus now is to ensure that workplace conduct remains respectful and that our facilities’ policies continue to meet legal standards.
“We are going to evaluate the forthcoming Equality and Human Rights Fee steering when it’s revealed and can make any changes which can be required.
“Leonardo remains a supportive and inclusive environment for all employees.”
