UK Employment Tribunal Upholds Company’s Transgender Toilet Policy in Landmark Ruling

An employment tribunal in Edinburgh has dismissed a discrimination case brought by a female engineer. Maria Kelly had challenged her employer’s policy on transgender staff using women’s toilets. The ruling, delivered in December 2025, concluded the policy was lawful and proportionate. This case marks a significant legal test following recent Supreme Court clarifications.The tribunal heard Kelly’s arguments that the policy compromised women’s privacy and safety. However, Judge Michelle Sutherland found the policy did not place women at a significant disadvantage. According to BBC and Sky News coverage, the judgment referenced the UK Supreme Court’s 2025 definition of ‘sex’ as biological.

The Core of the Legal Challenge and Tribunal Findings

Maria Kelly worked as an engineer for aerospace firm Leonardo UK. She initiated proceedings after a 2023 encounter with a transgender colleague in a female bathroom. Kelly alleged the policy constituted harassment and indirect sex discrimination against women. She argued women have specific biological needs requiring single-sex spaces for dignity.The tribunal examined whether the policy put women at a particular disadvantage. Judge Sutherland’s written decision noted only Kelly had formally complained out of 9,500 staff. The company offered alternative single-occupancy toilets for those seeking more privacy. The judge ruled this provided a reasonable and private option for any concerned employee.The policy’s aim was to treat transgender staff lawfully and inclusively. The tribunal accepted this was a legitimate goal for any employer. It found Leonardo’s approach was a proportionate means of achieving it. The minimal number of complaints indicated the policy’s impact was not broadly detrimental.

Broader Implications for UK Workplaces and Equality Law

This ruling arrives after a pivotal UK Supreme Court decision in April 2025. That case clarified that ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act refer to biological sex. It confirmed single-sex services can exclude transgender women in certain contexts. However, it left room for interpretation regarding everyday facilities like workplace toilets.Legal experts suggest this tribunal ruling navigates that complex landscape. It acknowledges the Supreme Court’s definition while applying a practical test of proportionality. The presence of alternative facilities was a key factor in the judgment. Employers may see this as a template for balancing competing rights.The reaction has been divided. Campaign group Sex Matters criticized the ruling as inconsistent with the Supreme Court. Transgender advocacy groups warned against policies that could increase exclusion. For now, the decision provides some clarity for businesses navigating this sensitive area.The case underscores ongoing national tensions around gender identity and sex-based rights. Future guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is awaited. This guidance will help employers apply the Supreme Court’s definition consistently.

Oilers Clash as Minnesota Aims for 12th Straight Undefeated Game

This tribunal ruling confirms UK companies can maintain transgender-inclusive toilet policies if they provide privacy options. The decision emphasizes practical proportionality over absolute rights, setting a precedent for workplace equality disputes.

Info at your fingertips

What was the engineer’s main complaint?

Maria Kelly argued that allowing transgender women into female toilets compromised the privacy and dignity of biological women. She claimed this created a disadvantage linked to sex, citing needs related to menstruation and pregnancy.

Why did the tribunal reject the discrimination claim?

The tribunal found the policy did not cause a significant disadvantage to women as a group. It highlighted that private, single-occupancy toilets were available, and only one employee out of thousands had complained.

How does this relate to the recent UK Supreme Court ruling?

In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled ‘sex’ in the Equality Act means biological sex. This tribunal applied that definition but concluded the company’s proportionate policy, with alternatives provided, did not breach the law.

What has the company, Leonardo UK, said?

Leonardo stated it respects the tribunal’s decision and remains committed to an inclusive environment. The company said it appreciates the professionalism of colleagues and will review any new EHRC guidance.

Will this case be appealed?

Yes. Maria Kelly has stated her intention to appeal the decision. She believes the tribunal misunderstood the law and the implications of the Supreme Court ruling.

What should other UK employers take from this?

Employers should ensure inclusive policies are proportionate and consider providing alternative facilities. The case shows courts will examine practical impact and available options when assessing discrimination claims.