Authored By: Suyash Goel
Case Name: Rooney v Leicester City Council [2021] UKEAT 2021-000256
Introduction
The case of Rooney v Leicester City Council represents a watershed moment in UK employment law, specifically regarding the intersection of the menopause and disability discrimination. While the menopause is a natural biological process, this Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision confirmed that its symptoms can meet the statutory definition of a “disability” under the Equality Act 2010, and that an Employment Tribunal cannot dismiss such a claim without properly engaging with the evidence.1 By overturning a flawed initial ruling and remitting the disability question for fresh consideration, the EAT signalled a shift toward a more holistic, impact-based assessment of health conditions in the workplace.2
The Statutory Framework: Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
To understand the significance of Rooney, one must examine the legal hurdle the claimant faced. Under Section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010, a person has a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a “substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”3 “Substantial” is defined in Section 212(1) as “more than minor or trivial.” “Long-term” is defined in Schedule 1 as lasting, or likely to last, for at least 12 months. Normal day-to-day activities include activities such as shopping, driving, household tasks, and social interaction. In Ms Rooney’s case, the central legal dispute was whether the menopause could be classified as such an impairment.4
Factual Background
Ms Maria Rooney was a long-serving social worker for Leicester City Council. Around 2015, she began experiencing a range of severe perimenopausal symptoms. These were not merely “hot flushes” but a debilitating constellation of physical and psychological issues, including:
- Extreme fatigue and exhaustion, leading to several days spent in bed
- “Brain fog,” severe memory loss, and loss of concentration
- High levels of anxiety and clinical depression
- Physical symptoms such as palpitations and severe insomnia
Ms Rooney’s symptoms led to extended periods of sickness leave. She alleged that her employer failed to provide adequate support and instead subjected her to a hostile environment, including a formal warning regarding her attendance. In October 2018, feeling she had no other choice, she resigned and brought claims for constructive dismissal, harassment, and discrimination based on sex and disability.5
The Employment Tribunal (ET) Decision
At a preliminary hearing, the ET dismissed Ms Rooney’s disability claim. The Judge concluded that her symptoms did not amount to a disability. The ET’s reasoning was heavily criticised by the EAT later; the Judge had focused on what Ms Rooney could still do (for example, that she could still care for herself and her home) rather than on the activities she was unable to perform or the difficulty she faced in performing them.6 Furthermore, the ET struck out her sex discrimination and harassment claims, labelling them as “redundant” or “add-ons” to the central dispute.
The Appeal: Grounds and Arguments
Ms Rooney appealed to the EAT on several grounds:
- Misapplication of the disability test — that the ET focused on a “comparative” approach (comparing her to a non-disabled person) rather than an “impact” approach.
- Failure to consider cumulative effects — the ET looked at symptoms in isolation rather than weighing their combined effect.7
- Procedural irregularity — the striking out of her sex discrimination claim was done without a full hearing of the facts (a “Scott Schedule”).
The EAT Judgment and Reasoning
Judge Tayler, presiding over the EAT, allowed the appeal in its entirety. The judgment provided a masterclass in how tribunals should approach complex, fluctuating conditions like the menopause.
A. The “Substantial” Threshold
The EAT held that the ET had set the bar for “substantial” too high. If an impairment is not “minor or trivial,” it is “substantial.” Ms Rooney’s evidence that she forgot to lock her door, left the oven on, and suffered from such fatigue that she could not function clearly surpassed the minor/trivial threshold. The EAT emphasised that tribunals should not look for “total incapacity” but rather for a “limitation.”
B. Consistency of Evidence
The EAT noted a logical inconsistency in the original ET’s ruling. The ET had acknowledged that Ms Rooney’s symptoms were “real” and had lasted for years (satisfying the “long-term” requirement), yet concluded they weren’t substantial. Judge Tayler remarked that it was difficult to reconcile how a person could suffer from such documented severe symptoms without them being “substantial.”
C. Striking Out Discrimination Claims
The EAT was particularly critical of the ET’s decision to strike out the sex discrimination and harassment claims. These are “fact-sensitive” issues. By dismissing them summarily, the ET denied the claimant the right to prove that she was treated differently because she was a woman going through a female-specific health transition.8
Legal Significance and Implications
Rooney v Leicester City Council is now a leading authority for several key principles in UK employment law.
Menopause as a potential disability: It is no longer legally sustainable for an employer to dismiss menopausal symptoms as “a phase” or a natural transition incapable of meeting the disability threshold. Where the impact is severe enough, it can receive the same protection as any other chronic medical condition.9
Reasonable adjustments: Following this case, employers have a heightened duty to consider “reasonable adjustments” (section 20, Equality Act 2010) for menopausal employees. This might include flexible working hours, temperature control in the office, or adjusted absence triggers in sickness policies.
Judicial rigour: The case serves as a warning to tribunals to avoid “template” judgments. They must engage deeply with the claimant’s specific testimony regarding their daily struggles.10
Conclusion
The Rooney case corrected a significant procedural and evidential oversight. It moved the menopause out of the shadows of “workplace taboo” and into the light of statutory protection. For Ms Rooney, the appeal meant her case could finally be heard in full on its merits. For the wider workforce, it signals that employers and tribunals alike must take debilitating menopausal symptoms seriously, helping protect women from unfair dismissal and harassment and supporting their dignity and continued participation in the professional world.11
Bibliography
Primary Sources: Cases
Rooney v Leicester City Council [2021] UKEAT 2021-000256 (Employment Appeal Tribunal).
Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302 (regarding the approach to disability).
Primary Sources: Legislation
Equality Act 2010, ss 4, 6, 20, 26, 39, Schedule 1.
Secondary Sources: Articles and Reports
BDBF, ‘Employment Tribunal wrong to say that a woman suffering from menopausal symptoms was not disabled’ (2021) bdbf.co.uk, accessed 7 May 2024.
Lewis Silkin, ‘EAT confirms menopause symptoms can amount to a disability’ (2021) lewissilkin.com, accessed 7 May 2024.
3PB Barristers, ‘Caution required in case management: Rooney v Leicester City Council’ (October 2021) 3pb.co.uk, accessed 7 May 2024.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), ‘Menopause in the workplace: Guidance for employers’ (2024).
Footnote(S):
1. Equality Act 2010, s 6(1).
2. Rooney (n 1), paras 5–8.
3. Equality Act 2010, s 6(1).
4. Rooney (n 1), para 15.
5. Rooney (n 1), para 19.
6. Rooney (n 1), para 22.
7. Rooney (n 1), para 30.
8. EHRC, ‘Menopause in the workplace’ (2024).
9. Equality Act 2010, s 20.
10. Rooney (n 1), para 45.
11. JMW Solicitors, ‘Rooney v Leicester City Council’ (2021).
