Epileptic accountant fired for taking 5 instances longer than colleagues to finish tax returns wins incapacity discrimination declare

An epileptic accountant fired for taking five time times longer than colleagues to complete tax returns has won a disability discrimination claim.

Toheed Hussain was dismissed by bosses at Armstrong Watson LLP after his condition caused significant delays in his work.

While most of his colleagues took between 30 and 42 minutes to complete a return, Mr Hussain needed an average of two hours and 42 minutes to complete the task. On one occasion it took him almost four and a half hours.

The firm charges 80 per cent of its time to clients, with each job carrying a pre-agreed fee, meaning if a job takes too long it might not be profitable for the company.

Mr Hussain was told at a probation review meeting that his efficiency required improvement.

He was then invited to a further meeting a month later where he was told he could be dismissed from his job.

The employee responded by formally requesting more time to complete tasks, citing a larger report into his medical condition.

Mr Hussain agreed to attend another meeting to discuss his situation but resigned the day before without an explanation.

After unsuccessfully requesting compensation from the firm, he took his case to an employment tribunal in Newcastle, which agreed the company had a ‘clear and legitimate business need to ensure work was done efficiently’ but ultimately said that Mr Hussain was discriminated against.

He is now in line to receive compensation from Armstrong Watson LLP.

Pictured: Toheed Hussain, an epileptic accountant fired for taking five time times longer than colleagues to complete tax returns. He has now won a disability discrimination claim

Mr Hussain began his brief employment at the firm in July 2023 and was subject to a six-month probationary period, during which the company ‘retained the right’ to dismiss him.

Armstrong Watson was founded over 150 years ago and has nine regional offices across the UK, with Mr Hussain based at the Newcastle site.

He suffers from temporal lobe epilepsy and had up to 20 ‘brief’ seizures a day which affected his memory and made him take longer with tasks.

At the end of August 2023, his manager asked him why it had taken almost four and a half hours to prepare a tax return.

The next day at a probation review meeting, Mr Hussain agreed that he needed to improve, but did not request more time for his tasks.

It was also considered a problem that he did not make his time chargeable to clients, thus impacting the firm’s profits. 

When these issues had not improved, his manager sent him a further email on September 14.

He replied: ‘The time I spend can be attributed to the problems I have with my poor memory as a result of my disability and the subsequent tax return process I follow.’

Another manager replied to his email reiterating why they needed his work to improve, saying: ‘The time charged does need to be recoverable, as we cannot, as a business, continue to work in a way which is not profitable.’

A meeting was organised between Mr Hussain and his managers where they told him about the issues with his work.

This included, ‘Large amounts of time to clients for relatively straight forward returns’, and, ‘No understanding around commerciality and costs need to be less than fees to make profit, been told on numerous occasions about this.’

Mr Hussain was told a possible outcome of the meeting was dismissal.

But he told his managers at the meeting about a larger report he had into his medical condition and asked for more time to complete tasks.

Mr Hussain was soon sent another email which read: ‘During our probation review meeting on 31 August 2023, I outlined my concerns in relation to performance including but not limited to, incorrectly recording time on your timesheets, efficiency, skills, technical ability and organisation.

‘However, due to the continuous and seriousness of the concerns I have raised, I would like to invite you to attend a formal probation review meeting on 28 September.

‘During the meeting I will conduct a review of your employment to date however I must remind you, that in accordance with your contract of employment, and due to continued concerns around your performance to date, a possible outcome of this probation review meeting is that your employment with Armstrong Watson may be terminated.’

Mr Hussain initially agreed to attend the meeting, but resigned the day before it was scheduled to take place.

Employment Judge Stuart Robinson told the tribunal: ‘On balance, the Tribunal considers that the treatment of [Mr Hussain] up to and including 15 September 2023 in challenging the amount of time [Mr Hussain] was taking whilst explaining the need for work to be undertaken profitably and properly recorded and asking [Mr Hussain] if there was any explanation for the time or help they could provide was proportionate.’

But the judge added: ‘The Tribunal finds that [Armstrong Watson] has not justified sending the letter in those terms to [Mr Hussain] who had requested a disability-related adjustment in the form of more time.

‘The Tribunal rejects the assertion that [Mr Hussain] should have known that the report and possible adjustments would be discussed at the meeting as it had been made clear on 20 September 2023, when the letter did not say that and conveyed a different position.

‘The letter could and should have made clear what would happen at the meeting and that, in particular, reasonable adjustments would be discussed. It did not say that. The letter was a part of the disadvantageous treatment of [Mr Hussain] and it led to [Mr Hussain’s] resignation.

‘[Armstrong Watson’s] action in sending that letter was not proportionate, and the Tribunal unanimously decides that [Mr Hussain’s] complaint succeeds.’