Datt had worked for McAdams restaurant for 23 years (taking orders and cleaning) when, in 2007, she came down with a skin condition on her hands that was made worse by frequent hand washing. She took several short-term disability leaves, but her condition always worsened after she returned to work. McAdams said that frequent hand washing was necessary to maintain acceptable sanitary conditions to meet both government regulations and its own hygiene policies. For example, the restaurant has a timed system where a timer sounds each hour, and all crew members and the manager must wash their hands. Datt’s doctor reported that she could not perform any job requiring frequent hand washing but there were duties she could perform, including cash, some food preparation, and some cleaning. However, in August 2009, the benefits provider told Datt she would not be able to return to work because "restaurant work was not good for her" and offered her a three-month job search program. In November 2009, McAdams terminated her. Datt filed a human rights application.
a.Did Datt have a disability?
b.Was this a case of prima facie discrimination?
c.Did the employer have a duty to accommodate Dattand if so, did it fulfill that duty up to the point of undue hardship? Explain your answer.
a. Yes, Datt had a disability as she had a skin condition on her hands.
b. Yes, this is a case of prima facie discrimination as Datt was terminated based on her disability.
c. Yes, the employer had a duty to accommodate Datt. The duty to accommodate requires employers to take reasonable steps to accommodate employees with disabilities, up to the point of undue hardship. In this case, Datt's doctor had provided a report stating that she could perform certain duties that did not require frequent hand washing. McAdams could have modified her duties to accommodate her condition without causing undue hardship, such as assigning her tasks that did not involve frequent hand washing. Instead, they terminated her without exploring possible accommodations. Therefore, the employer did not fulfill its duty to accommodate Datt up to the point of undue hardship.
a. Yes, Datt had a disability. Her skin condition on her hands made it difficult for her to perform tasks that involved frequent hand washing, which is an essential part of her job at McAdams restaurant.
b. Yes, this is a case of prima facie discrimination. Prima facie discrimination refers to discrimination that is evident on the face of it, based on a protected ground (in this case, disability). McAdams terminated Datt's employment due to her disability, as indicated by the benefits provider's statement that "restaurant work was not good for her." This shows that the decision to terminate her was based on her disability, which constitutes prima facie discrimination.
c. Yes, the employer had a duty to accommodate Datt. Under human rights legislation, employers have a duty to accommodate employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. In this case, Datt's doctor reported that she could perform certain tasks such as cash handling, some food preparation, and some cleaning, which indicated that there were other duties she could perform at the restaurant. The duty to accommodate requires the employer to explore reasonable alternatives or adjustments to enable the employee to continue working.
However, it is unclear from the given information whether the employer fulfilled their duty to accommodate Datt up to the point of undue hardship. The employer's claim that frequent hand washing was necessary for sanitary conditions may be a valid argument, but without further information, it is not clear whether alternative solutions were considered or explored that could have allowed Datt to continue working without exacerbating her skin condition.