Saudi court overturns salary deduction imposed on visually impaired employee

A Saudi administrative appeals court has upheld a ruling overturning an employer’s decision to deduct salary from a visually impaired employee who could not register his attendance through a fingerprint-scanning system, despite regularly attending work and fulfilling his duties.

The Administrative Court of Appeal in the Madinah region upheld the earlier verdict issued by the Administrative Court of Madinah, according to a report published by the Board of Grievances and reported by Okaz/Saudi Gazette on October 12, 2026.

The salary deduction was imposed because the employee had failed to record his attendance using the fingerprint system. However, the employee challenged the decision, explaining that his visual impairment made it difficult to repeatedly travel to the location of the scanner.

After reviewing the case and relevant documents, the court determined that the employee’s failure to register attendance through the fingerprint system did not constitute absence or negligence.

The ruling took into account that the employer had previously accepted the employee’s explanation and exempted him from the fingerprint-based attendance system in consideration of his visual impairment.

The employee’s direct supervisor also confirmed that he attended work regularly, supporting his claim that the failure to register through the system did not reflect a failure to fulfil his responsibilities.

The court concluded that the employer’s decision was defective in its reasoning and ordered its annulment. The Administrative Court of Appeal subsequently upheld that ruling.

The case highlights the importance of considering employees’ disabilities and individual circumstances when implementing workplace attendance and monitoring systems.

For employers, the ruling underscores the need to ensure that attendance procedures accommodate employees who may face accessibility barriers, particularly when alternative arrangements have already been approved.

It also highlights the distinction between a failure to comply with a particular attendance-recording mechanism and actual absence from work. In this case, the employee’s regular attendance and fulfilment of his duties were supported by his supervisor’s confirmation.

The ruling reinforces the importance of applying workplace policies fairly and ensuring that administrative procedures do not disadvantage employees whose disabilities affect their ability to use standard systems.