Cases8001497/2024

Claimant v Leonardo UK Limited

24 November 2025Before Employment Judge Michelle SutherlandScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Harassment(sex)failed

The tribunal found that the operation of the toilet access policy was unwanted conduct related to sex, but in the circumstances of this case the conduct did not have the effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her, particularly as she continued to use the same toilets she had used for years with no practical effect on her dignity or environment.

Direct Discrimination(sex)failed

The tribunal found that by operation of the toilet access policy the claimant was not treated less favourably than a man in the same circumstances. The policy applied equally to men and women. It could not be said that it violated the privacy of a woman but did not violate the privacy of a man. The correct comparator was a male user of male toilets which are also accessed by trans men, not a male user of female toilets.

Indirect Discrimination(sex)failed

The tribunal found that the toilet access policy did not in the circumstances of this case put female staff (including the claimant) at a particular disadvantage in comparison with men. The policy did not make women in general more fearful, at greater risk of violence and sexual assault, or have a greater impact on their privacy than men. In the alternative, any disadvantage was minor and insignificant and the toilet access policy was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of treating transgender employees lawfully, with respect and dignity, and creating an inclusive workplace environment.

Facts

The claimant, an engineer employed since 2007 at the respondent's Edinburgh site, challenged the respondent's toilet access policy which from June 2023 permitted transgender staff to use toilets aligned with their asserted gender identity rather than biological sex. The claimant raised concerns through correspondence from June 2023, raised the issue at JCC meetings, and submitted a formal grievance in June 2024. The respondent maintained approximately 2,800 staff at the Edinburgh site (20% female, 0.5% trans), provided multiple-occupancy male and female toilet blocks plus accessible and single-occupancy facilities, and from October 2024 converted stairwell toilets to single-occupancy mixed-use facilities.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the toilet access policy was unwanted conduct related to sex but did not have the prohibited effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment because it had no practical effect on the claimant who continued using the same toilets. The policy did not amount to direct discrimination as it applied equally to men and women and the correct comparator was a male user of male toilets (also used by trans men). The policy did not put women at a particular disadvantage as there was no evidence it made them more fearful, at greater risk of violence, or had greater privacy impact; in the alternative any disadvantage was minor and the policy was objectively justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of treating transgender employees lawfully, respectfully and creating an inclusive workplace.

Practical note

A toilet access policy permitting transgender staff to use facilities aligned with their gender identity rather than biological sex does not necessarily amount to unlawful sex discrimination where there is no evidence of actual group or individual disadvantage to female staff, particularly where single-occupancy facilities are available and the policy can be objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of inclusion and compliance with equality obligations toward transgender employees.

Legal authorities cited

Croft v Royal Mail [2003] Court of AppealPatel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] ICR 318Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller [2023] EAT 5Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Croft v Royal Mail [2002] EAT

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.19Equality Act 2010 s.13Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8Gender Recognition Act 2004Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Reg 20Equality Act 2010 s.39

Case details

Case number
8001497/2024
Decision date
24 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
defence
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Engineer / People and Capability Lead
Service
18 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister