Engineer’s dignity could have been violated in trans toilet incident, boss says

An engineer’s dignity would have been violated if she had to wash menstrual blood off her hands in a female bathroom where a trans colleague was present, a vice-president at her employer has told an employment tribunal.

Andrew Letton, Leonardo UK’s vice-president of people shared services, said he was not aware of the incident but that it would have been “distressing” for Maria Kelly if it occurred.

Ms Kelly raised concerns about transgender colleagues using female toilets and is taking legal action against her employer Leonardo UK.

She has lodged a complaint alleging harassment, direct and indirect discrimination.

Ms Kelly, people and capability lead for the aerospace defence company, previously told the employment tribunal that she began using a “secret toilet” at her workplace after encountering a transgender colleague in a female bathroom in March 2023.

Naomi Cunningham, representing Ms Kelly, continued cross examining Mr Letton at the tribunal on Friday and asked him about the incident her client had described.

She said: “Maria Kelly gave evidence that she first encountered a man entering the women’s toilets near her desk after she had been washing blood off her hands after dealing with menstrual flow, do you accept that that state of affairs was a violation of her dignity?”

Mr Letton said he was not aware of the situation and could not comment.

Naomi Cunningham asked: “If that happened, do you accept that would have been a violation?” to which he replied, “I accept it would have been distressing”.

Ms Cunningham asked: “Would it have been a violation of her dignity?” to which he replied “yes”.

Ms Kelly told the tribunal on Wednesday that as someone who suffers from heavy periods, female toilets are important to her as a place of refuge and privacy to deal with them.

On Friday, the tribunal heard that when dealing with menstrual blood, Ms Kelly had a choice of either using the toilets nearest to her desk, walking through an atrium to toilets with more privacy or using the accessible toilet.

Mr Letton said he did not think this constituted a violation of her dignity because of the choice of facilities available.

The lawyer also asked whether it was the case that, as of October 2024, there were no “suitable” single occupancy toilets for Ms Kelly to use on the floor where she worked unless she used the accessible toilet, as other facilities were all shared, which he agreed was the case.

The tribunal also heard that as of January 2025, the ladies’ toilets were “rebadged” as a WC while no change was made to the men’s loos.

Employment Judge Sutherland asked Mr Letton why the ladies was rebadged as unisex but not the men’s, to which he replied: “I think one of the reasons it was not rebadged was because it still had urinals in it.”

The tribunal, taking place in Edinburgh, continues.