Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants Ltd (t/a Mcdonald's Restaurants Ltd) & Ors EA-2020-000110-JOJ; EA-2020-000278-JOJ
Appeals in relation to disability discrimination. Appeals from both the Claimant and Respondent allowed in part.
The Claimant complained of multiple incidents of disability discrimination of various kinds, during 2018/2019. She claimed to have, or have had, a number of disabilities. Those claims are contested and the matter is ongoing in the ET. The Claimant had a brain tumour removed in 2008. The nature of this tumour and whether it was cancer (the Claimant’s case is it was) was a contentious point between the parties. At a preliminary hearing, the ET found that the Claimant was, at the relevant times, a disabled person by reason of epilepsy and vitiligo, but not by reason of cancer, whether in the past or the present, dermatitis or an episode of organic psychosis. The Claimant appealed against the decisions that she neither had in the past, nor currently had, at the time of the matters complained of, cancer. The Respondents appealed against the decision that she was disabled by reference to epilepsy and vitiligo.
The EAT allowed the Claimant’s appeal against the finding that she did not have cancer in the past. The EAT substituted a finding that she did, and so could rely on that in 2018/2019. The EAT dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the finding that she did not at that time have, or still have, cancer. The EAT allowed the Respondent’s appeal against the tribunal’s finding that the Claimant’s vitiligo did not amount to a disability and that question was remitted for fresh consideration, in particular with reference to the significance of exposure to the sun in her case. The EAT allowed the Respondent’s appeal against the finding that the Claimant’s epilepsy did not amount to a disability and that question was also remitted for fresh consideration.
Published: 03/12/2021 13:49