Kearlsey Case Study Essay

Tony Kearsley applies for a position as a firefighter with the metropolis of St. Catharines and was accepted on condition that he were to pass a health check examination by a doctor specified by the metropolis. However, during the medical checkup exam the doctor discovered that Kearsley had an atrial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat) and refused to pass him. Kearsley took it upon himself to debate a medical specialist who advised him that his condition would indeed non affect his ability to perform his craft as a firefighter.Kearsley then(prenominal) filed a complaint against the city with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. At the Commissions Bored of question hearing, the doctor who had origin completelyy examined Kearsley testified that atrial fibrillation led to increased risk for slice meaning his heart could fail to pump sufficient blood to his organs during the extreme conditions that come with firefighting. The posting of doubtfulness called a medical right i n atrial fibrillation. The expert testified that the increased risk for stroke in someone of Kearsleys age was inconsequential.The expert further testified that there was no increased risk for heart failure in someone corresponding Kearsley because he was otherwise in good health. Mean art object, after Kearsley got turned bolt down by the St. Catharines fire department, Kearsley had become a firefighter in the metropolis of Hamilton, achieving the rank of first-class firefighter in October 2001. 2. Why did the Board of interrogation rule in Kearsleys favour? The Board of Inquiry control in Kearsleys favour because they came to the conclusion that Mr. Tony Kearsley had in fact suffered diversity.The Board noted that it would abide been the city of St. Catharines responsibility to seek an expert conviction when confronted with a medical condition such as that gear up in Kearsley. The Board also indicated that this was the procedure used in other municipalities. The City did not follow their responsibilities which led to Mr. Kearsleys unfair treatment and secretion based on harm. For these reasons, this is why I think the Board of Inquiry most definitely ruled in Kearsleys favour. 3. Do you bind with the decision in this case?Why or why not? I strongly agree with the decision of the case. Tony Kearsley was without a doubt, discriminated based on disability which is illegal in Canada. I feel like the city of St. Catharines defiantly should have handled this matter in a more legitimate and professional way, as it seems that none of the facts in favour of the city of St. Catharines rattling added up. I feel like the city jumped to conclusions too quickly not taking into account that Tony Kearsley was still fully capable to fulfill all duties of a firefighter. They did not treat Mr.Kearsley as an equal after purpose out he had a disability this is an act of discrimination and this is illegal. The city of St. Catharines owes at the least these things t o Mr. Tony Kearsley in return for their lack of knowledge towards him while doing their job. 4. In what ways in this case a question of kind rights? This case is a question of human rights because it is strongly discriminating against disability in the workplace. The Ontario Human Rights Code provides in part 5(1) Every individual has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of handicap.10(1) 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 incapable(p) of performing of fulfilling essential duties or requirements attending the exercise of the right because of handicap. It is obvious at once that a person with very bad eyesight is not discriminated against when refused a job as a truck driver nor a person with light strength wh en refused a job as a police incumbent or firefighter.There is no doubt that St. Catharines considered that Mr. Kearsley had a physical disability, atrial fibrillation. The issue is whether St. Catharines was justified in concluding that because of this perceived disability Mr. Kearsley was incapable of performing or fulfilling essential duties as a firefighter. It was later found 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.