'Kearlsey Case Study Essay\r'

'Tony Kearsley applies for a order as a reliever with the urban center of St. Catharines and was accepted on condition that he were to protract a aesculapian interrogative sentence by a doc undertake by the metropolis. However, during the medical exam the doctor discovered that Kearsley had an atrial fibrillation (an irregular warmheartednessbeat) and refused to pass him. Kearsley took it upon himself to consult a medical specialiser who advised him that his condition would indeed non affect his ability to perform his clientele as a firefighter.\r\nKearsley then filed a complaint against the city with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. At the Commissions Bored of research hearing, the doctor who had sooner examined Kearsley testified that atrial fibrillation led to increased essay for stroke meaning his heart could break up to pump sufficient blood to his organs during the extreme conditions that come with firefighting. The bestride of Inquiry call(a)ed a medical ex pert in atrial fibrillation. The expert testified that the increased fortune for stroke in someone of Kearsley’s age was inconsequential.\r\nThe expert further testified that thither was no increased risk for heart failure in someone resembling Kearsley because he was otherwise in penny-pinching health. Meanwhile, afterward Kearsley got turned down by the St. Catharines fire department, Kearsley had become a firefighter in the metropolis of Hamilton, achieving the rank of fantabulous firefighter in October 2001. 2. Why did the Board of Inquiry rule in Kearsley’s favour? The Board of Inquiry rule in Kearsley’s favour because they came to the polish that Mr. Tony Kearsley had in fact suffered discrimination.\r\nThe Board historied that it would afford been the City of St. Catharines responsibility to try on an expert opinion when confronted with a medical condition such as that put in in Kearsley. The Board also indicated that this was the functioning u sed in other municipalities. The City did non follow their responsibilities which led to Mr. Kearsley’s unfair preaching and discrimination ground on check. For these reasons, this is why I count the Board of Inquiry most emphatically ruled in Kearsley’s favour. 3. Do you agree with the closing in this bailiwick?\r\nWhy or why not? I strongly agree with the decision of the case. Tony Kearsley was without a doubt, discriminated based on check which is illegal in Canada. I witness like the city of St. Catharines defiantly should bring forth handled this matter in a more than ordered and professional way, as it seems that none of the facts in favour of the city of St. Catharines unfeignedly added up. I feel like the city jumped to conclusions too quickly not taking into account that Tony Kearsley was still fully unfastened to fulfill all duties of a firefighter. They did not treat Mr.\r\nKearsley as an equal after finding out he had a impairment; this is a n act of discrimination and this is illegal. The city of St. Catharines owes at the least these things to Mr. Tony Kearsley in drive away for their lack of knowledge towards him while doing their job. 4. In what ways in this case a question of human rights? This case is a question of human rights because it is strongly acuate against disability in the workplace. The Ontario Human Rights enroll provides in part: 5(1) E actually soulfulness has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of … halter.\r\n10(1) â€Å"because of handicap” means for the reason that person has or had, or is believed to have or have had a) any degree of physical disability that is caused by illness. 17(1) a right of a person under this Act is not infringed for the reason only that the person is unable(predicate) of performing of fulfilling necessity duties or requirements be the exercise of the right because of handicap. It is obvious at once tha t a person with very bad eyesight is not discriminated against when refused a job as a hand truck driver nor a person with incapable strength when refused a job as a police officer or firefighter.\r\nThere is no doubt that St. Catharines considered that Mr. Kearsley had a physical disability, atrial fibrillation. The issue is whether St. Catharines was warrant in concluding that because of this perceived disability; Mr. Kearsley was incapable of performing or fulfilling essential duties as a firefighter. It was after put out that Mr. Kearsley could indeed perform all duties as a firefighter, as he got hired by the City of Hamilton later that year. Therefore, Mr. Kearsley was discriminated against based on disability and this is without a doubt, a question of human rights.\r\n'