|
|
06 Oct 2009
KPMG has been ordered to pay £45,435.06 at an employment tribunal over its handling of a disability case.
The Big Four firm let trainee Dhrupa Bid go after she twice failed the ICAEW's computer-based qualifying exams, as she was unaware of her dyslexia.
The firm has a strict rule that anyone failing their qualifying exams twice will not be permitted to continue employment.
Bid failed her first exam and was given permission by the firm to defer her retake so that a dyslexia assessment could be obtained from the ICAEW. She was warned by the firm if she failed she would have to be dismissed.
Previously Bid had passed exams, taken in paper format, with marks higher than 80% but was astounded to find her marks dropping to 40% when taken on computer.
She re-sat her exams in November 2008 and failed, only finding out afterwards that she did suffer from dyslexia and should have been provided an extension on time and given a paper exam.
The defending solicitor, John Mackenzie, said: "As she is disabled she should have been allowed to take the exam again."
Adding: "They knew if she were to take the exam on paper she would pass, as previously she was getting 88% pass marks."
The judge presiding said "The claimant's claim for unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability based on the respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments is well founded."
The firm was ordered to pay; £12,000 for injury to feelings; £8,528.92 for loss of earnings up to the hearing; £24,906.14 for future losses; including £311.85 interest on injury to feelings; and £102.96 interest on compensation.
Bid has since been forced to return to Kenya as she no longer holds a work visa.
A spokesman for KPMG said: "KPMG believes it acted properly and fairly at all times and did what was required of a responsible employer in supporting Ms Bid once the probability of her having dyslexia was made known to us."
The firm said it will study the case further before deciding on whether or not to appeal.
Further reading:
You may also like
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
AccountancyAgeInsight is a frequently updated resource centre for finance professionals, offering a free and easy-to-use digital library of briefings, white papers and other information resources. 
Visitor comments Add your comment
a firm that prouds itself on being one of the best employers to work for!
Obviously its all in the letter heading but not something they actually practice!
former KPMG employee
Posted by: simrit, 08 Oct 2009 | 00:00
will think twice
Taken from http://www.efd.org.uk/media-centre/media-releases/2006/efd-event-minimise-risk .....
?Mike Blake, KPMG's Chief Financial Officer and Disability Champion, who will be speaking at the event said: "We take seriously our commitment to diversity in KPMG.
"As part of our commitment we are beginning to explore the links between diversity and procurement, so for us this workshop is a timely opportunity to share ideas and best practice on working with suppliers, and encouraging disability confidence in the supply chain." ?
Maybe organisations will start to think about instructing KPMG as their auditors/ accountants now that it is apparent they are not DDA compliant.
Surely KPMG can do the math - £45,000 vs. making fairly cheap reasonable adjustments?
Posted by: David Berry, 08 Oct 2009 | 00:00
Things happen
Such little little things happen in such big big cities. NOt to worry KPMG guys. Keep it up.
Posted by: Abdullah, 09 Oct 2009 | 00:00
Fit for purpose?
This case is another example of political correctness and stifling laws from a Stalinist government. Naturally one may sympathise with Miss Bid's predicament but the fact is that she could not do the job to the required standard. Whether she is labelled disabled or not, she could not pass the test. She may have passed the test on paper this time but exceptions cannot be made for her her whole life.
Posted by: Peter, 09 Oct 2009 | 00:00
Dyslexic auditor?
As a KPMG client I wouldn't have been thrilled if forced to deal with a consultant who couldn't cope with my computer system because of their dyslexia. Perhaps the big firms should introduce a computer based test when recruiting people in the first place...
And as a former working-visa holder am astonished that one can come to the UK unable to deliver work to the required standards and then successfully sue the employer who procured you the visa.
Posted by: Olga, 14 Oct 2009 | 00:00
Justified
In response to Olga, surely you're not saying that dyslexic people are not supposed to work in audit firms? I have colleagues who work alongside me in a Big 4 and who are dyslexic, yet they are successful in the same exams if provided with the extra time which they require.
FYI, KPMG do require computer based tests prior to recruiting candidates. All Big 4s do. That is not the issue here. By your reasoning, an employer who sponsors a candidate for a work permit is immune from any wrongdoing? Maybe dyslexics and work permit holders should also be paid less? They pay the same taxes and get no benefits anyway, so why not.
Posted by: Javier Mercantez, 15 Oct 2009 | 00:00
KPMG is really Best Big Company to work for
It happens in big companies.
However, I have also worked in company and I will say that :
KPMG is the best company to work for
Posted by: Turab, 19 Oct 2009 | 00:00
Amazing!
I am not really interested in judging whether KPMG was right or wrong or whether the judgement was in order.It is just amazing to me that employees do not have any right in developing countries in Africa,especially in Nigeria.I doubt if Ms Bid could have gotten thet gut to sue her employer in Kenya,talk less in Nigeria.
Something has to be done about labour law in African countries.
Posted by: jajamark, 05 Nov 2009 | 00:00
Its not what you know, its what you don't know.....
Great to know you can now be successfully sued for things you didn't know about your employees, which they also didn't know, and so didn't put in place processes to help them overcome the thing they didn't know they had. Perhaps we should now all assume all our employees have some latent disability, and put processes in place to assist them in overcoming these, just in case.......
Posted by: bristoldave, 26 Nov 2009 | 00:00
Things happen
I have colleague who is dyslexic but notified the company upon joining. She received all necessary support along the way to qualification. There could be some miscommunication here I suppose.
Posted by: cocoon, 29 Nov 2009 | 00:00
Re:Javier Mercantez, 15 Oct 2009 | 00:00
I totally agree with Javier. I am dyslexic and have Asperger's. I have had to endure a lot of ill treatment in a professional environment.
There are certain things dyslexic people cannot do because of the way the brain is. 10% of the population is dyslexic- 4% severely. However, they are very good logical thinkers and creative problem solvers.
I feel the knee-jerk comments made by those who do not understand:
Political correctness --not really. Rather than forcing people to work on their weakness, company will get more out of them by making them work to their strength. I am sure Winston Churchill would side with me on this comment given he was dyslexic and he had some sort adjustments made to assist him in his job. Of course this was before the days of adjustments being enshrined in law.
Computer Systems--Alan Turing-need I say more. He had learning difficulties but he invented the computer.
Developing countries --we are a developed nation. Are we to lower our standards to those of the Third World? Of course not. Were we should do, to make the adjustments and get the best out of.Perhaps we
Assume all our employees have some latent disability-the thing about hidden disability is that it is hidden. However human resources into big companies are trained to pick this out and capitalise on these talents.
One in three entrepreneurs in the US are dyslexic. Given that the big four firms are likely to audit some of them, there is clearly a moral conflict.
Posted by: ken, 01 Sep 2011 | 12:15