In Rooney v Leicester CC the EAT found in effect the ET had made a complete mess of a menopause disability case, as well as cavalierly striking out a sex discrimination case & failing to properly engage with time issues on a PiD detriment claim. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
#ukemplaw
#ukemplaw
2/ The EAT found in particular the ET had concentrated on what C could do as against what she couldn't, contrary to Ahmed v Metroline, found effects weren't longterm contrary to uncontroverted evidence & misrepresented C's own evidence on the extent of impairment. 
3/ 1 strange thing about this case was that C's 1st ET1, drafted by solicitors, conceded she wasn't disabled, but the following day C submitted a 2nd ET1 as an LiP claiming to be disabled & that the solicitors hadn't been authorised by her to concede non-disability.
4/ Given that the 2 claims were consolidated, it wasn't appropriate for the ET to rely on the concession without the context of the 2nd claim.
5/ The ET had also struck out a sex discrimination claim without engaging with the way the claim was put at all, an approach which both received disapprobation from the ET & enabled HHJ Taylor to restate the care that should be taken before dismissing a discrimination claim.
6/ Finally, C sought to amend late to add in a PiD claim. She did so because she only discovered the circumstances of the detriment through disclosure. The ET had erred in rejecting the application for time reasons without seemingly considering why it was submitted when it was.
7/ Whilst HHJ Tayler restrained himself from using his judgment to make wider pronouncements on impairments resulting from menopause, his judgment versus that of the ET provided a stark contrast between a judge taking such impairments seriously & one who didn't appear to do so.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
