Cases8001055/2024

Claimant v PriceWaterhouseCooper Services Limited

11 August 2025Before Employment Judge M A MacleodScotlandhybrid

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing on the issue of disability status only. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled from 23 February 2022 due to Other Specified Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorder, but not due to Burnout. The respondent had already conceded disability in relation to ASD and ADHD. The merits of the discrimination claims remain to be determined at a future hearing.

Facts

The claimant, employed by PwC since 2012, claimed to be disabled due to four conditions: ASD, ADHD (conceded by respondent), Burnout, and Other Specified Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorder. He was on long-term sick leave from November 2021 onwards. The claimant argued that he suffered from mental health difficulties from August 2020 but did not report them due to alexithymia (difficulty identifying and expressing emotions). Medical records from his GP and occupational health did not show evidence of mental health issues until February 2022, when low mood was first recorded and antidepressant medication commenced.

Decision

The tribunal found that Burnout was a symptom, not a condition capable of constituting a disability. However, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was disabled from 23 February 2022 onwards due to Other Specified Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorder, manifesting as low mood, disrupted sleep, and low energy. The tribunal rejected the claimant's assertion that he was disabled from August 2020, finding the contemporaneous medical records more reliable than retrospective self-reporting and the expert report, which had not seen all relevant medical records.

Practical note

Contemporaneous medical records are crucial evidence in disability status cases; retrospective expert reports based primarily on claimant self-reporting without access to all medical records will be treated with caution, particularly where they contradict contemporaneous professional assessments.

Legal authorities cited

Abadeh v British Telecommunications Plc [2001] IRLR 23Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729McNicol v Balfour Beatty [2002] IRLR 711J v DLA Piper UK LLP UKEAT/0263/09Igweike v TSB Bank Plc [2020] IRLR 267Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants Ltd [2021] 7 WLUK 749Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant UKEAT/01617/19Seccombe v Reed in Partnership Ltd EA-2019-000478McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] IRLR 227All Answers Ltd v Mr W [2021] EWCA Civ 606Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council UKEAT/0100/16De Keyser v Wilson [2001] IRLR 34Vicary v British Telecommunications Plc [1999] IRLR 680

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
8001055/2024
Decision date
11 August 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No