Engineer Loses Tribunal Case Over Transgender Toilet Access Policy at Leonardo UK

An aerospace engineer who claimed she was discriminated against for being required to share workplace toilets with transgender women has lost her tribunal case against Leonardo UK. The ruling is one of the first major employment decisions to be handed down since the UK Supreme Court’s landmark judgment earlier this year defining woman and sex under the Equality Act in terms of biological sex.

Maria Kelly, a people and capability lead at Leonardo UK in Edinburgh, brought claims of harassment, direct sex discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination after she raised concerns about transgender colleagues using facilities designated for women. She argued that the company’s policies violated her rights as a biological woman, created discomfort in the workplace, and forced her to seek private toilet options.

But employment judge Michelle Sutherland dismissed all elements of Kelly’s case, concluding that Leonardo had acted lawfully, proportionately, and without causing any measurable disadvantage to female staff.

The judgment reflects increasing legal clashes at the intersection of workplace inclusion policies and evolving interpretations of equality protections—an issue rising to national prominence as more employers update policies on sex and gender identity in response to recent court rulings.

The Policy at the Centre of the Dispute

Leonardo UK, a major defence and aerospace manufacturer with around 9,500 employees, describes itself as a company committed to diversity and inclusion. Its workplace guidance permits trans employees to use facilities that align with their gender identity—an approach historically common across UK workplaces.

Kelly objected to this accommodation.

She first became aware of a transgender colleague using women’s toilets in 2019 but avoided raising a complaint, she told the tribunal, because she feared being labelled “transphobic”. In March 2023, she encountered the same colleague again, which she said triggered renewed distress.

Instead of continuing to use the women’s toilets, Kelly began seeking out a “secret” facility on site—a single-occupancy toilet not widely used or designated for women.

Kelly lodged a formal internal grievance with the company shortly afterward. When company processes did not lead to the withdrawal of the access policy, she took the matter to tribunal.

The central claim: women’s rights to single-sex spaces were being unlawfully undermined.

Tribunal Findings: “No Substantial Disadvantage”

In her ruling, Judge Sutherland said there was no evidence that Leonardo’s policy had subjected Kelly or other female colleagues to detriment.

“One out of 9,500 employees raised a concern about the impact of the policy despite multiple means to do so,” the judgment noted.

The tribunal found that Kelly:

• suffered no actionable harassment
 • experienced no unlawful discrimination
 • could have used multiple alternative private facilities
 • was not exposed to any elevated risk to safety or dignity

Judge Sutherland wrote:

“Any fear or privacy impact could be addressed by affected female staff making recourse to the single-occupancy facilities.”

She also rejected arguments implying that transgender women posed an increased risk:

“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.”

In summary, the tribunal concluded that allowing trans women to use women’s toilets was a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim,” namely respecting employees’ gender identity while maintaining workplace inclusion.

Context: The Supreme Court’s Biological Definition Ruling

The case arrives in the shadow of a seismic legal shift.

In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court issued a precedent-setting ruling determining that sex and woman in the Equality Act 2010 must be interpreted according to biological categories—not gender identity. The case, often referenced as For Women Scotland, has already influenced major institutions.

This week:

• The Women’s Institute announced it will ban trans women from membership from April
 • Girlguiding confirmed trans girls not recorded as female at birth will no longer be eligible to join

Both organisations have cited legal compliance as the driving force.

Kelly and her supporters argue that the tribunal decision failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s definition, asserting that biological women must be legally entitled to exclusive access to women’s facilities.

Gender-critical advocates say the ruling represents defiance or misunderstanding of the higher court’s precedent.

Reaction From the Claimant: Appeal Planned

Kelly expressed disappointment in the judgment and insisted she would fight on.

“I believe [the decision] fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case,” she said in a statement. “I intend to appeal, and will ask for an expedited process.”

Kelly said the ruling risks adding confusion to how workplaces apply the Supreme Court findings, particularly around sex-segregated spaces such as toilets and changing rooms.

She portrayed her case as one of principle rather than personal conflict:

“This is about ensuring women’s rights are respected in law. It’s not about rejecting anyone—no woman should have to compromise her dignity or fear being punished for expressing discomfort.”

Support From Advocacy Groups

Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters—an organisation that campaigns on sex-based rights—criticised the outcome.

“This judgment interprets the law as transactivists would wish it to be,” she said. “It is incompatible with the Supreme Court ruling in several places.”

She suggested that some lower courts were still applying gender-identity-based interpretations despite the redefinition in law.

The group For Women Scotland, which has campaigned for legal recognition of biological sex in policy, also expressed concern that tribunals may hesitate to enforce the new legal standard.

Leonardo UK Responds: Commitment to Inclusive Workplace

Leonardo UK welcomed the tribunal’s findings, emphasising that its policies were already in line with legal requirements.

In a statement, a spokesperson said:

“We recognise the process has been demanding for everyone involved and we appreciate the professionalism shown by colleagues who supported the proceedings.”

The company said it will continue to maintain respectful workplace conduct and review updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) when it is released.

“Leonardo remains a supportive and inclusive environment for all employees,” the spokesperson added.

The company also reaffirmed that its facilities access policies would remain in place unless legal updates require changes.

A Case Reflecting a Nation Divided

This tribunal ruling exposes a widening rift in how workplaces, courts, and advocacy groups view sex and gender.

Supporters of policies like Leonardo’s say:

• Inclusion improves mental health and morale for trans employees
 • Policies that segregate based solely on biological sex harm marginalized workers
 • Practical and legal accommodations can maintain dignity for all staff

Gender-critical campaigners argue:

• Biological sex distinctions should take legal priority
 • Sex-segregated facilities exist for safety and privacy reasons
 • Inclusive toilet policies force women to compromise

As public institutions update policy to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, employers find themselves navigating a legal and cultural minefield—trying to protect rights without marginalising staff or becoming targets of high-profile litigation.

What Happens Next?

Kelly’s planned appeal means the case could set further precedent.

Legal experts note that employment tribunals are not bound to expand or interpret the Supreme Court’s ruling beyond its specific legal context. The tension now lies in how employers interpret biological-sex-based law while maintaining compliance with other equality protections—such as discrimination protections for transgender people.

The forthcoming EHRC guidance will likely shape future policy clarity. Both supporters and opponents of trans inclusion say clearer boundaries are urgently needed.

Rising Stakes Across the UK

This case is part of a growing queue of legal challenges involving:

• Toilets and changing rooms
 • Hospital wards
 • Prisons
 • Membership policies
 • Gender-specific public services

With more disputes now expected, legal analysts say the courts will continue to be asked to define how sex-based rights operate in mixed-gender workplaces and public spaces.

The outcome of Kelly’s appeal could contribute to shaping that balance.

A Broader Debate Far From Resolved

The tribunal may have closed this chapter, but the national argument over sex, gender identity, and access to public life is intensifying—not quieting.

• Trans rights advocates believe this case affirms workplaces can remain inclusive, lawful, and respectful of gender diversity.
 • Gender-critical campaigners say women should never have to share intimate spaces with people they view as male in law.

Caught between these positions are employers like Leonardo UK, striving to create safe environments for workers who hold deeply conflicting beliefs about identity and dignity.

Regardless of the ultimate legal outcome, both sides agree: the wider conversation isn’t going anywhere.

Contact Us Now

Related Article:

New UK Wills Law Could Usher In Dynamic, Flexible Tax Planning for a Digital Era

New Wills Law Could Unlock Dynamic Estate Planning and Tax Efficiency for UK Families

Ahead of the Budget, Are the Super-Rich Really Fleeing the UK Over Taxes?