Quick Read
- Maria Kelly, an engineer at Leonardo UK, lost her discrimination case over the company’s transgender-inclusive toilet policy.
- The employment tribunal found Leonardo’s policy did not significantly disadvantage women and offered privacy options.
- Judge Michelle Sutherland ruled the policy was lawful and proportionate, referencing the UK Supreme Court’s 2025 definition of ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ as biological.
- Kelly was the only employee to lodge a formal complaint among 9,500 staff; she intends to appeal the decision.
- Leonardo UK said it will review future guidance and maintains its commitment to an inclusive workplace.
Engineer’s Challenge: The Story Behind Maria Kelly’s Tribunal Battle
In December 2025, Maria Kelly—a long-serving engineer at aerospace giant Leonardo UK—found herself at the center of a heated national debate. Her case, brought before an employment tribunal in Edinburgh, challenged her employer’s policy allowing transgender colleagues to use women’s toilets, igniting discussions about privacy, inclusion, and the interpretation of UK equality law.
Kelly’s grievances began in March 2023, after an encounter with a transgender colleague in a female bathroom at Leonardo’s Edinburgh office. The incident led her to lodge a formal complaint, alleging harassment, direct sex discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination. She argued that women, due to biological factors such as menstruation and pregnancy, require greater privacy in toilet facilities. The policy, she claimed, compromised this need and placed female staff at risk.
The Tribunal’s Decision: Proportionate Policy and Legal Standards
After months of legal proceedings, Employment Judge Michelle Sutherland delivered a comprehensive written judgment. According to Sky News and BBC, the tribunal found that Leonardo’s policy did not constitute a significant disadvantage to women compared with men. Judge Sutherland concluded that any privacy concerns could be addressed by female staff choosing to use single-occupancy facilities already available in the workplace.
The judgment emphasized that only one out of 9,500 employees—Ms. Kelly herself—had raised a formal complaint about the policy. This represented just 0.05% of the female workforce, while the number of transgender staff was also extremely small (about 0.5%). The tribunal noted that the risk profile for safety in the toilets remained unchanged, and the company’s approach was a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”—namely, treating transgender staff lawfully and inclusively.
Judge Sutherland’s findings referenced the UK Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling, which clarified that terms like “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act refer to biological sex. Despite this, the tribunal ruled that Leonardo’s gender-identity-based toilet policy did not breach the law, particularly given the practical options for privacy and the minimal impact on female employees.
Personal Impact and Company Response
For Maria Kelly, the judgment was a bitter disappointment. In statements quoted by Global Banking and Finance Review, she asserted that the tribunal “fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case.” Kelly described her decision to start using a “secret” toilet after her 2023 encounter, and revealed her initial reluctance to report the issue out of fear of being labeled “transphobic.”
Leonardo UK, meanwhile, maintained that its policies met legal standards and workplace conduct remained respectful. A spokesperson reiterated the firm’s commitment to inclusivity, noting, “We recognise that the process has been demanding for everyone involved and appreciate the professionalism shown by colleagues who supported the proceedings.” The company pledged to review future guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and implement any necessary adjustments.
Andrew Letton, Leonardo’s vice-president of people shared services, told the tribunal that Kelly had multiple facility options, including accessible single-occupancy toilets and those with greater privacy. He described the company’s response to Kelly’s grievance as “nothing but sympathetic,” adding that she was considered a “valuable employee.”
Legal Fallout and Ongoing Debate
The tribunal’s ruling did not settle the larger conversation about sex, gender identity, and workplace rights in the UK. Maya Forstater, chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, criticized the judgment as being “incompatible with the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland,” suggesting that lower courts were still prioritizing gender identity over biological sex.
Legal experts, like Jo Mackie of law firm Michelmores, anticipate that Kelly’s case will be appealed in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision. That ruling clarified that single-sex services—such as hospital wards, refuges, and sports—can legally exclude trans women, but left open questions about everyday workplace facilities. Transgender campaigners, meanwhile, warn that strict adherence to biological sex definitions could lead to increased discrimination and exclusion.
Within Leonardo, the practical effects of the tribunal’s decision are likely to be subtle but significant. The women’s toilets at the Edinburgh office were “rebadged” as a WC in January 2025, removing explicit gender designation, though men’s facilities (with urinals) were unchanged. The company awaits further EHRC guidance on how to interpret and implement the Supreme Court’s definition of “woman” in workplace settings.
A Case Reflecting National Tensions
Maria Kelly’s experience highlights the complexities at the intersection of law, personal dignity, and social change. The case revealed the isolation felt by those raising concerns—Kelly being the only complainant out of thousands of employees—and the anxieties about being stigmatized in the workplace. It also underscored the challenge facing employers: balancing inclusivity for transgender staff with the privacy needs and concerns of others, all while navigating evolving legal interpretations.
As of early December 2025, Kelly has announced plans to appeal, aiming to clarify what she sees as a widespread misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The outcome of her appeal could set further precedent and shape future workplace policies across the UK.
Maria Kelly’s tribunal loss signals that, for now, UK workplaces may lawfully prioritize inclusive policies for transgender staff—provided privacy options exist and risks are minimal. Yet, the fierce debate surrounding her case reveals how unresolved and deeply personal these issues remain for many, with legal, social, and ethical lines still being drawn.