An engineer at aerospace company Leonardo UK has lost a legal challenge after claiming she faced sex-based discrimination and harassment for having to share women’s toilets with transgender colleagues.
Maria Kelly, who works as a people and capability lead at the company, took her case to an employment tribunal in Edinburgh in October. Her claims of harassment, direct discrimination and indirect discrimination were all dismissed by employment judge Michelle Sutherland in a written judgment published on December 3.
Kelly had brought the case following a grievance lodged with the company in 2023. She argued that the firm’s toilet access policy created a working environment that undermined the rights of female employees and did not align with the legal definition of sex under the Equality Act.
Policy ruled lawful and proportionate
In her ruling, Judge Sutherland said Leonardo UK’s approach was based on a legitimate aim and proportionately applied. She noted that only one employee out of 9,500 had raised concerns despite the presence of multiple feedback mechanisms.
 |
Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.
|
The judgment states: “Any fear or privacy impact could be addressed by affected female staff making recourse to the single occupancy facilities.”
Judge Sutherland added that the presence of transgender women in female toilets did not significantly alter overall safety. “Any effect on risk of assault arising from 0.5% of men using the women’s toilets instead of the men’s toilets would not have changed the overall risk profile across toilet facilities generally,” the tribunal found.
“In the circumstances of this case, the toilet access policy was in the alternative a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
Supreme Court ruling cited in arguments
The case followed the UK Supreme Court’s April 2025 decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, which clarified that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act refer to biological sex.
Kelly’s legal team had argued that the company’s toilet policy did not comply with this interpretation. She told the tribunal she began using a “secret” bathroom after encountering a transgender colleague in a female toilet in March 2023, having first become aware of the situation in 2019.
She said she had not raised her concerns earlier out of fear of being labelled “transphobic” or added to a “naughty list”.
Following the tribunal’s decision, Kelly said: “I am of course disappointed by the judgment, which I believe fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case.”
She added: “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.”
Commentary and response
Maya Forstater, chief executive of the sex-based rights campaign group Sex Matters, also criticised the outcome. “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 in a statement.
“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.”
Hina Belitz, employment partner at corporate firm Excello Law, told HRreview that the case exposed continued uncertainty over legal protections following the Supreme Court ruling.
“It’s evident that the recent Supreme Court judgment has painted a complicated picture for both the lower courts and the potential parties to a claim when it comes to what falls within the protection of the Equality Act 2010 and what does not,” she said.
“This is particularly the case with respect to whether there is any right for ‘protected single sex spaces’ on the basis of biological sex.”
Leonardo UK, a defence and aerospace firm that employs thousands across its UK sites, said it respected the outcome of the tribunal.
A spokesperson for the company said: “We recognise that the process has been demanding for everyone involved and we appreciate the professionalism shown 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.”
The company added that it would review forthcoming guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and make any adjustments required. “Leonardo remains a supportive and inclusive environment for all employees,” the spokesperson said.
Revisiting workplace policies
Legal observers noted that the case is one of the first since the April Supreme Court judgment to test how sex-based rights under the Equality Act interact with inclusion policies for transgender staff in shared facilities.
The outcome suggests that toilet access policies may still be lawful where they meet the test of being a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, the case is expected to be closely watched if Kelly proceeds with an appeal.
Employers have been advised to remain aware of legal developments and future guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is due to publish updated information on single-sex spaces and workplace facilities.
William Furney is a Managing Editor at Black and White Trading Ltd based in Kingston upon Hull, UK. He is a prolific author and contributor at Workplace Wellbeing Professional, with over 127 published posts covering HR, employee engagement, and workplace wellbeing topics. His writing focuses on contemporary employment issues including pension schemes, employee health, financial struggles affecting workers, and broader workplace trends.
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
