http://www.mccarthy.ca/article_detail.aspx?

id=3905
http://mundoconsiderato.blogspot.com/2013/08/mcdonalds-hand-washing-case.html

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=b09e714f-3a3e-4d73-a3c1bff4906c3a59
http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2007/pdf/aug/324_Datt_v_McDonalds_Restaurants_
%28No_3%29_2007_BCHRT_324.pdf
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 times 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 employment. Datt filed a human rights application to the Ontario Human Rights
Commission/Tribunal pursuant to Ontario law.
Please address the following issues in reviewing the merits of the human rights application:
Questions:
1. Did Datt have a disability? How is a "disability" defined pursuant to the Ontario Human
Rights Code?
2. Was this a case of discrimination? Why or why not?
3. 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.
4. If you were a member of the Tribunal, how would you decide this particular case?