u/king_of_ash

I’m very confused. I received the following email from Mohela.

“A recent legal settlement ended the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan, and it is no longer available to borrowers. As a result of the settlement, MOHELA was directed by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to deny all SAVE Plan applications. Visit StudentAid.gov/courtactions for more information about the settlement.

MOHELA records show that you submitted an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan application and requested either
the SAVE Plan or
the SAVE Plan and another plan.
You must now select a new repayment plan. If you're not currently enrolled in the SAVE Plan and don't submit a new application for a different repayment plan within 90 days, your SAVE forbearance will end and you will be required to resume payments on the plan you were on before you applied for SAVE. If you're currently enrolled in the SAVE Plan, you will be placed on either the Standard Repayment Plan or the Tiered Standard Plan, depending on your circumstances.”

I’d love to go back in time and unconsolidate my loans-they were FFELs and my largest had a 2.25% interest rate. But I followed the advice I was given and consolidated in 2022 for the myriad SAVE benefits that are…no longer in existence, lost two years towards repayment/forgiveness, and have now been thrust into this fresh hell. I haven’t applied for a new plan, nor have I done anything like recertify (though I need to). I’ve received no other notices from MOHELA, just this one, and I don’t know what it means. Any help would be most welcome.

Hi-hoping for some insight here. During COVID, some Amex credit cards became unpayable. Amex sued in 2021-2024 but the suits were all dismissed without prejudice for lack of service. The date of first delinquencies were all in May 2020. Messaged Amex trying to get a hardship extension in July 2020. No answer or contact with them since. The relevant state has a 5 year statute of limitations for credit card debt. The debts will fall off my credit report next year/within ten months.

It’s now July 2026. Emails were sent from Amex notifying that Midland Credit has acquired the old debts. I do not receive mail at the address any notices would be sent to. I am not currently in the US and won’t be returning for quite some time.

Completely unclear about the process here, especially as I’m out of the country. Any advice would be very welcome.

Scotland, LiP. Date of list of documents on which I intend to reply is approaching. Have requested documents and F&BP at various points in the process (PH agenda, etc). Respondents said each time it was premature. Am looking over my list and many documents on which I intend to rely are a) Respondent-held b) require more clarity due to assertions made in their GoR (ie claims there were complaints about me, which I was never told about-so who made them, what was the escalation trail, what management follow up was there, HR discussions, and so on).

The judge did say the parties should request copies of documents we haven’t seen. With the list exchange date approaching, is it too late to ask for F&BP related to their GoR? Am I better off requesting documents that should exist if normal processes had been followed? What is a reasonable time frame for that? Should I make these requests individually? All together? I’m so confused as to how to go about this with disclosure not being automatic, and as always, any advice is appreciated!

Scotland. Respondents conceded disability last fall. I have a physical disability as well as a condition under the neurodiversity umbrella that causes a host of impairments.

I have asked for many documents over the past 1.5 years since I was dismissed-one was an email in which I responded to my line manager that I was doing X task at Y time because of Z (impairment related to my neurodiversity) and the effect it has on me.

The Respondents conceded disability status but contested knowledge and causation as of November 2025. Their GoR states “The claimant never informed Respondents he had (neurodivergent condition).” Point blank.

The date for the exchange of lists of documents on which each party intends to rely is coming up. I’ve asked Respondents for many documents. They haven’t replied to most requests. So I tried asking for this single email. They’ve replied and said they’d include it with the list.

Should I ask them to concede knowledge of disability? Is a request to concede/denial useful in any way? Claiming S15 and failure to make reasonable adjustments (among others). Also, it was not the first disclosure of this neurodivergent condition-but it was the first written disclosure. Another followed months later.

There were no managerial follow ups or OH referrals or anything following either.

With the NHS not doing scans until 12+ weeks, no betas, and having to go private with NIPT and I assumed CVS/amnio, how are people faring?

Scotland, LiP. I realise that the ACAS channel is without prejudice, but going over my notes, emails and documents in preparation for the creation of the list of documents on which I intend to rely, it’s even clearer that Respondents’ rationale for dismissing me changed quite significantly between dismissal, then ACAS, then the few documents they sent in ye months after my DSAR, then finally their ET3.

Some pretty surprising things were conveyed to the ACAS conciliator, which are contradicted by comparator dismissal letters which they didn’t know I had.

How best can I make use of that—is there any way? The respondents didn’t otherwise engage in the process before the time limit expired and never responded to a WP letter sent by a white shoe solicitor I took advice from and hired to draft it, but I do realise WP is WP-I’m just wondering if there’s some other way, in Scotland, I may be able to get at this evidence. Without automatic disclosure, I’m struggling a bit.

Thanks as always for everyone’s insight 🙏

Disclaimer: I’m not Lubavitch myself, just a Jew living in a hostile diaspora country so very grateful to Chabad.

In honour of the Rebbe, I am going to do some extra mitzvos today (and try to steer clear of lashon harah specifically) and read from his teachings and give tzedaka in his merit.

If anyone else wants to honour the Rebbe’s memory, here are some great ways to do it:

https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article\\\_cdo/aid/2625014/jewish/What-to-Do-on-3-Tammuz.htm

May we all merit the arrival of Moshiach speedily in our time.

Disclaimer: I’m not Lubavitch myself, just a Jew living in a hostile diaspora country so very grateful to Chabad.

In honour of the Rebbe, I am going to do some extra mitzvos today (and try to steer clear of lashon harah specifically) and read from his teachings and give tzedaka in his merit.

If anyone else wants to honour the Rebbe’s memory, here are some great ways to do it:

https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article\\\_cdo/aid/2625014/jewish/What-to-Do-on-3-Tammuz.htm

May we all merit the arrival of Moshiach speedily in our time.

Case is in Scotland. One of my claims (S15) relies on actual comparators (and in the alternative a hypothetical comparator). Coworkers 1 and 2 and I had the same roles. They were treated very differently than I was.

I’ve been ordered to produce a list of documents on which I intend to rely. Some of those documents are Respondent held comparator records that would evidence the different treatment/standards I was held to compared to my coworkers. One of those coworkers I am calling as a witness (I’d planned to call both but the judge told me to rethink, and one is still employed by the company and afraid of retaliation).

If I request these comparator docs voluntarily, and Respondents respond with GDPR shielding or some such, how would an order for specific disclosure request for comparator records be viewed (salary, pay raises, performance reviews, attendance logs, complaints) by the EJ here?

Thanks as always for your thoughts!

Scotland, LIP. At a preliminary hearing with a new/different judge on several proposed amendments that were mostly (I thought) relabelling issues/further particulars of claims submitted in the PH agenda that ended up needing to be drafted as separate claims in the list of claims, the judge refused permission to amend in respect of several “contentious allegations.” However, in the written reasons, the judge also said some of the same material was evidence/background for existing claims.

For example: internal records were said to be evidence of existing victimisation detriments; performance management material was said to be part of the factual background/evidential matrix; documents recovered through the DSAR were capable of being referred to insofar as relevant to existing claims.

My concern is that the operative order refuses the “contentious allegations” globally but doesn’t clearly separate:

1. Freestanding new claims
2. Particulars of existing claims
3. Relabelling
4. Evidence/background of existing claims.

I applied Vaughn/Selkent, Cox and Fong, but the judge didn’t address the prejudice to me at all in terms of not being able to bring forward my claims-they focused instead on the length of the hearing and cost to respondent, and that I erred procedurally in not properly including my claims in the ET1 when many disabled litigants manage just fine. The judge dismissed that the reason that I couldn’t have brought all of my claims in my ET1, which I mentioned in written pleadings and at the hearing, was because the details of certain issues related to performance management weren’t supplied via DSAR until after my ET1 was due-ex: I didn’t know that my line manager was calling me a lazy **** until they disclosed that. When asked in my PH agenda whether there was anything additional I thought the judge should know, I said “that my line manager called me a lazy **** in performance management notes.” But the judge ruled that because I did not claim that in my ET1, I cannot now advance that as a separate claim.

Overall, my practical concern is that at the final hearing the respondent may argue that documents.transcripts/internal records touching those refused allegations are excluded entirely even where I only want to rely on them as evidence of existing claims of victimisation, causation, knowledge, credibility, disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, and dismissal rationale

I’m particularly concerned as one claim, which I labelled as an act of harassment, but should have labeled under victimisation, because it was also a key detriment in the victimisation chain: after suspecting discrimination and asking coworkers about their pay, my line manager reported my COO being furious that I had updated my personal website and that became part of my company file (which I only learned about after filing the ET1 via my DEAR).

I argued in my pleadings in the alternative that this disputed incident-which I have a recording of/transcript of-was not just evidence of harassment but evidence of victimisation following a protected act. The written reasons in the tribunal’s PH amendments decision appear to only treat it as a harassment amendment and do not expressly address the victimisation/evidential use point.

So my questions are these, for anyone willing and gracious enough to help:

1. Is this properly dealt with by a short reconsideration/clarification application to the ET, rather than going straight to the EAT? Or might I be doing more harm than good?

2. Is it legitimate to ask the ET to clarify that refusal of permission to amend doesn’t prevent reliance on the underlying documents/transcripts as evidence for surviving claims?

3. Would a narrow application framed as clarification/variation, rather than an attempt to re argue the amendment application be procedurally sensible?

4. If making the application, should it ask for reconsideration in the alternative only, with the primary request being clarification of the scope of the order?

The proposed relief would be something like: “clarification that the refused amendments may not be advanced as freestanding claims, but the underlying documents/transcripts/internal records may be relied upon insofar as relevant to the existing pleaded claims, including victimisation, causation, knowledge, credibility and remedy.”

I’m terrified about pissing off the tribunal, but I am also struggling to understand the judge’s amendment denial. At the time of my amendments request a final hearing hadn’t been fixed, the FH still isn’t until Winter, and the respondents hadn’t particularised the prejudice to them even though the prejudice to me was very clear. The Judge seemed to completely ignore Fong…I’m honestly baffled about the whole decision, but equally terrified about bringing an appeal.

Totally in the weeds here and any thoughts or feedback would be more than welcome.