Question

Datt had worked for McAdams restaurant for 23 years (taking orders, 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 Datt and, if so, did it fulfill that duty up to the point of undue hardship? Explain your answer.

Answer 1

Answer: Yes to a, yes to b, and yes to c

Step-by-step explanation:

a. Yes, Datt had a disability as she had a skin condition on her hands worsened by frequent hand washing, as confirmed by her doctor.

b. Yes, this was possibly a case of prima facie discrimination as Datt was terminated from her job due to her disability and the employer did not attempt to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship.

c. Yes, the employer had a duty to accommodate Datt as she had a disability, and yes, it did not fulfill that duty up to the point of undue hardship. The employer could have accommodated Datt's condition by assigning her tasks that did not require frequent hand washing. However, instead of accommodating her, the employer terminated her. The benefits provider also did not fulfill its duty to accommodate her by offering her a three-month job search program instead of finding a suitable position for her. Therefore, it appears that the employer did not fulfill its duty to accommodate Datt up to the point of undue hardship.