Kearlsey Case Study Essay Example for Free

Kearlsey Case Study EssayTony Kearsley applies for a position as a firefighter with the city of St. Catharines and was accepted on condition that he were to pass a medical checkup test by a doctor specified by the metropolis. However, during the medical exam the doctor discovered that Kearsley had an atrial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat) and refused to pass him. Kearsley took it upon himself to consult a medical specialist who advised him that his condition would thusly non affect his ability to perform his job as a firefighter. Kearsley then filed a complaint against the city with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. At the Commissions Bored of Inquiry hearing, the doctor who had originally examined Kearsley testified that atrial fibrillation led to change magnitude encounter for stroke meaning his heart could fail to pump sufficient blood to his organs during the extreme conditions that get down with firefighting. The Board of Inquiry called a medical expert in a trial fibrillation. The expert testified that the increased try for stroke in someone of Kearsleys age was inconsequential.The expert further testified that there was no increased risk for heart failure in someone like Kearsley because he was otherwise in tidy health. Meanwhile, after Kearsley got turned down by the St. Catharines fire department, Kearsley had become a firefighter in the City of Hamilton, achieving the rank of first-class firefighter in October 2001. 2. Why did the Board of Inquiry rule in Kearsleys favour? The Board of Inquiry ruled in Kearsleys favour because they came to the conclusion that Mr. Tony Kearsley had in feature suffered discrimination.The Board noted that it would extradite been the City of St. Catharines responsibility to seek an expert opinion when confronted with a medical condition such as that found in Kearsley. The Board also indicated that this was the procedure used in other municipalities. The City did not follow their responsibilities wh ich led to Mr. Kearsleys unfair treatment and discrimination found on stultification. For these reasons, this is why I think the Board of Inquiry most definitely ruled in Kearsleys favour. 3. Do you agree with the decision in this case?Why or why not? I strongly agree with the decision of the case. Tony Kearsley was with protrude a doubt, discriminated based on disability which is illegal in Canada. I odour like the city of St. Catharines defiantly should have 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 truly added up. I feel like the city jumped to conclusions too quickly not taking into account that Tony Kearsley was still fully able-bodied to fulfill all duties of a firefighter. They did not treat Mr.Kearsley as an equal after finding 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 to Mr. Tony Kearsley in throw for their lack of knowledge towards him while doing their job. 4. In what ways in this case a question of humane rights? This case is a question of human rights because it is strongly discriminating against disability in the workplace. The Ontario Human Rights canon provides in part 5(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to involvement 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 chthonic this Act is not infringed for the reason only that the person is incapable of performing of fulfilling essential duties or requirements go to 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 unsatisfactory strength when refused a job as a police officer 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 afterward 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.