Claimant v WPP 2005 Limited t/a WPP IT
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim not yet determined at final hearing. This preliminary hearing dealt only with disability status.
Claim relates to alleged dismissal for making protected disclosures. Not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Detriment complaints for protected disclosures not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled for Equality Act purposes at the relevant times (July to November 2024). Facial numbness had no proven substantial adverse effect; left arm pain and knee problems were not long-term; PTSD lacked evidence of substantial adverse effect or long-term duration.
Dismissed because the Claimant was not disabled for Equality Act purposes at the relevant times.
Dismissed because the Claimant was not disabled for Equality Act purposes at the relevant times.
Dismissed because the Claimant was not disabled for Equality Act purposes at the relevant times.
Not determined at this preliminary hearing on disability status.
Facts
The Claimant worked as an IT Programme Manager from February 2020 to November 2024. He suffered strokes/TIAs in December 2023 with facial numbness, left arm pain, and later developed knee problems and alleged PTSD. He brought three claims alleging unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriments, and disability discrimination. The Respondent challenged whether he was disabled. The Claimant's wife represented him; the Respondent was represented by counsel. A preliminary hearing was held to determine disability status.
Decision
The Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled at the relevant times (July-November 2024). Facial numbness lacked evidence of substantial adverse effect; left arm pain and knee problems were not long-term as they were expected to resolve within 12 months; PTSD lacked evidence of substantial adverse effect and long-term duration. All disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
Practical note
Claimants must provide clear medical evidence showing not just the existence of an impairment, but its substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities and that these effects were (or were likely to be) long-term at the relevant time, particularly for conditions like PTSD where expert evidence is essential.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2309603/2024
- Decision date
- 20 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- IT Programme Manager
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep