Epileptic Accountant Triumphs in Disability Discrimination Tribunal Case
An accountant suffering from epilepsy, who was dismissed from his position for requiring substantially more time to complete tax returns compared to his colleagues, has successfully won a disability discrimination claim. Toheed Hussain was terminated by Armstrong Watson LLP after his medical condition caused considerable delays in his work output, leading to a tribunal ruling in his favour.
Significant Time Disparity in Work Performance
While most accountants at Armstrong Watson LLP typically completed tax returns within 30 to 42 minutes, Mr Hussain needed an average of two hours and 42 minutes for the same tasks. On one particularly challenging occasion, a single tax return took him nearly four and a half hours to finalise. The firm operates on a business model where 80 percent of time is charged directly to clients, with each job carrying a pre-agreed fee structure, meaning extended completion times could render assignments unprofitable for the company.
Probationary Period and Performance Concerns
Mr Hussain commenced his employment with the firm in July 2023 and was subject to a standard six-month probationary period, during which the company maintained the right to terminate his contract if performance standards were not met. Based at the Newcastle office of Armstrong Watson, a firm established over 150 years ago with nine regional offices across the United Kingdom, Mr Hussain suffers from temporal lobe epilepsy. This condition caused him to experience up to twenty brief seizures daily, significantly affecting his memory retention and consequently slowing his task completion speed.
At the end of August 2023, his manager directly questioned why a particular tax return had required almost four and a half hours to prepare. During a subsequent probation review meeting, Mr Hussain acknowledged that his efficiency needed improvement but did not formally request additional time allowances or workplace adjustments at that stage. Management also expressed concern that he was not making his time chargeable to clients, thereby negatively impacting the firm's profitability margins.
Formal Request for Disability Adjustments
When these performance issues showed no improvement, Mr Hussain received a further email from his manager on September 14. In his response, he explicitly attributed his extended working times to memory problems resulting from his epilepsy disability and the specific tax return processes he followed. Another manager replied, reiterating the commercial necessity for work to be completed profitably, stating: "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 formal meeting was organised where managers outlined specific concerns, including "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." Mr Hussain was informed that dismissal remained a possible outcome. During this meeting, he presented a comprehensive medical report detailing his condition and formally requested additional time as a reasonable adjustment for his disability.
Resignation and Tribunal Proceedings
Following this discussion, Mr Hussain received another email inviting him to a formal probation review meeting on September 28, explicitly stating that termination of employment remained a possible outcome. Although he initially agreed to attend, Mr Hussain resigned the day before the scheduled meeting without providing further explanation. After unsuccessfully seeking compensation directly from the firm, he proceeded to file a claim with the Newcastle employment tribunal.
Tribunal Judgment and Reasoning
Employment Judge Stuart Robinson delivered the tribunal's judgment, acknowledging that the firm had "a clear and legitimate business need to ensure work was done efficiently" and that initial performance management up to September 15 had been proportionate. However, the judge ruled that Armstrong Watson had failed to justify sending the September meeting invitation letter to Mr Hussain after he had formally requested disability-related adjustments.
"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," stated Judge Robinson. "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."
The tribunal unanimously determined that the firm's actions in sending that particular communication were not proportionate, thereby upholding Mr Hussain's discrimination complaint. As a result of this ruling, Mr Hussain is now entitled to receive compensation from Armstrong Watson LLP for the disability discrimination he experienced during his employment.
