Woman's sex discrimination case dismissed following toilet complaint

A female employee has failed in her legal bid against an aerospace company after challenging its policy allowing transgender women to use female restrooms. Maria Kelly, an engineer at Leonardo UK in Edinburgh, claimed she experienced harassment along with direct and indirect discrimination when transgender women were permitted to access the womens toilet facilities.

Her case was reviewed by an employment tribunal, which ultimately rejected her allegations. The panel concluded that the companys approach did not create a significant disadvantage for women compared with male colleagues.

Judge Mark Sutherland stated that the restroom policy represented a reasonable and appropriate measure designed to support an inclusive environment for transgender employees. He also dismissed Kellys argument that womens privacy was being compromised for the benefit of a very small number of transgender staff, noting that she was the only one to lodge a complaint.

Kelly, who held a people and capability position, told the tribunal she viewed women-only bathrooms as a protective space. She first encountered a transgender woman using the facilities in 2019, though she did not report her concerns at the time due to fears of being labelled negatively.

Her formal complaint was raised in March 2023, following an incident in which she left the restroom after a transgender colleague entered, something she said left her uncomfortable. The tribunal also noted that the womens toilets were re-marked as general WC facilities in January 2025, while mens toilets remained unchanged because they include urinals.

Leonardo UK maintained that Kelly had various restroom options available, including facilities closer to her workspace, more private alternatives across the atrium, and an accessible toilet. Vice-president of people shared services Andrew Letton said the company acted supportively throughout and did not infringe her dignity.

The tribunal dismissed claims of harassment and sex discrimination, ruling that the policy did not increase risks to women or undermine their privacy more than it did for men.

Author: Natalie Monroe