An engineer has lost a high-profile discrimination claim against her employer after challenging its policy on transgender colleagues using women's facilities.
Tribunal Dismisses All Claims
Maria Kelly, an engineer at aerospace firm Leonardo UK, brought claims of harassment and both direct and indirect sex discrimination to an employment tribunal. She argued that the company's policy, which allows transgender colleagues to use women's toilets, created a disadvantage for her.
However, in a judgment delivered on 4 December 2025, Employment Judge Michelle Sutherland dismissed every aspect of Ms. Kelly's case. The tribunal found that the policy did not place female staff at a disadvantage. Judge Sutherland noted that any concerns about privacy or fear could be mitigated by staff using existing single-occupancy facilities available on site.
Privacy, Risk, and the Legal Clash
The tribunal examined the risk and privacy implications of the policy in detail. It concluded that the presence of transgender individuals, estimated as being from 0.5% of the male population, using women's toilets would not alter the overall risk profile of the facilities.
The judgment stated that Leonardo's policy was a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." This finding has sparked controversy, with critics asserting it clashes with a recent UK Supreme Court ruling. That ruling clarified that the terms "woman" and "sex" within the 2010 Equality Act refer to biological sex. Activists argue the tribunal is prioritising gender identity over this legal definition.
Personal Impact and Planned Appeal
Ms. Kelly revealed the personal toll of the situation, explaining that she began using a "secret" toilet at her workplace after an encounter with a transgender colleague in 2023. She also said she was initially afraid to raise her concerns for fear of being labelled transphobic.
Expressing deep disappointment with the outcome, Maria Kelly stated the judgment "fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case." She has immediately announced her intention to appeal the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), setting the stage for a further legal battle over the interpretation of rights and policies in the workplace.
