ADHD as a Disability: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Human Rights]] | [[Category:Human Rights]] | ||
[[Category:Medical Disability]] | |||
{{Citation: | |||
| categories = [Human Rights], [Medical Disability] | |||
| shortlink = 4n | |||
}} | |||
==Gaisiner v. Method Integration Inc., 2014 HRTO 1718 (CanLII)== | ==Gaisiner v. Method Integration Inc., 2014 HRTO 1718 (CanLII)== | ||
[1] The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him when it failed to accommodate his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and terminated his employment. The respondent denied that it breached the Code. It submitted that it terminated the applicant’s employment solely because he did not have the technical ability to perform the duties of his job. Alternatively, the respondent submitted that it provided reasonable accommodations for the applicant’s disability, that he was incapable of performing the essential requirements of the job and that any further accommodations would have caused the respondent undue hardship. | <b><u>[1] The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him when it failed to accommodate his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and terminated his employment.</b></u> The respondent denied that it breached the Code. It submitted that it terminated the applicant’s employment solely because he did not have the technical ability to perform the duties of his job. Alternatively, the respondent submitted that it provided reasonable accommodations for the applicant’s disability, that he was incapable of performing the essential requirements of the job and that any further accommodations would have caused the respondent undue hardship. | ||
[2] There was no dispute that the applicant had issues with his performance and that he was terminated due to these performance issues. The key questions in this case are the following: whether the applicant’s disability was a factor in his performance issues and, if so, whether he was capable of performing the essential duties of his position with accommodations that would not cause undue hardship to the respondent. | [2] There was no dispute that the applicant had issues with his performance and that he was terminated due to these performance issues. The key questions in this case are the following: whether the applicant’s disability was a factor in his performance issues and, if so, whether he was capable of performing the essential duties of his position with accommodations that would not cause undue hardship to the respondent. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 15: | ||
[3] At the hearing, I heard testimony from the applicant, his spouse, and Dr. Lance Levy, one of his treating physicians. I also heard testimony from Paul Jackson, the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer; Danny Do Couto, the applicant’s supervisor during the relevant time period; and Michael Melo, one of the applicant’s former co-workers. | [3] At the hearing, I heard testimony from the applicant, his spouse, and Dr. Lance Levy, one of his treating physicians. I also heard testimony from Paul Jackson, the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer; Danny Do Couto, the applicant’s supervisor during the relevant time period; and Michael Melo, one of the applicant’s former co-workers. | ||
[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the applicant has met his onus of establishing a violation of the Code in this case. | [4] For the reasons that follow, <b><u>I find that the applicant has met his onus of establishing a violation of the Code in this case.</b></u> | ||
<ref name="Gaisiner">Gaisiner v. Method Integration Inc., 2014 HRTO 1718 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gfggl>, retrieved on 2021-11-15</ref> | |||
==Cohen v. Law School Admission Council, 2014 HRTO 537 (CanLII)<ref name="Cohen"/>== | |||
<b><u>[69] There is no dispute between the parties that the testing service offered by the respondent is a service within the meaning of section 1 of the Code or that the applicant’s ADHD is a disability as defined in s. 10(1).</b></u> | |||
[70] Rather, the primary dispute between the parties involves whether or not the respondent breached the applicant’s right to access the LSAT without discrimination. The parties articulate this somewhat differently; namely, they describe the issue as being whether or not the respondent breached the substantive or procedural component of the duty to accommodate by failing to provide the applicant with the accommodations he requested. | |||
<ref name=" | [71] The applicant also alleges that the misconduct proceedings were in breach of the Code on the basis that if the respondent had granted the accommodations he believes he is entitled to, then the events of February 8, 2010, would not have occurred. | ||
<ref name="Cohen">Cohen v. Law School Admission Council, 2014 HRTO 537 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/g6kbp>, retrieved on 2021-11-15</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 14:29, 29 June 2022
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-26 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1810 |
| Page Categories: | [Human Rights], [Medical Disability] |
| Citation: | ADHD as a Disability, CLNP 1810, <4n>, retrieved on 2024-11-26 |
| Editor: | Smcgrory |
| Last Updated: | 2022/06/29 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
Gaisiner v. Method Integration Inc., 2014 HRTO 1718 (CanLII)
[1] The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him when it failed to accommodate his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and terminated his employment. The respondent denied that it breached the Code. It submitted that it terminated the applicant’s employment solely because he did not have the technical ability to perform the duties of his job. Alternatively, the respondent submitted that it provided reasonable accommodations for the applicant’s disability, that he was incapable of performing the essential requirements of the job and that any further accommodations would have caused the respondent undue hardship.
[2] There was no dispute that the applicant had issues with his performance and that he was terminated due to these performance issues. The key questions in this case are the following: whether the applicant’s disability was a factor in his performance issues and, if so, whether he was capable of performing the essential duties of his position with accommodations that would not cause undue hardship to the respondent.
[3] At the hearing, I heard testimony from the applicant, his spouse, and Dr. Lance Levy, one of his treating physicians. I also heard testimony from Paul Jackson, the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer; Danny Do Couto, the applicant’s supervisor during the relevant time period; and Michael Melo, one of the applicant’s former co-workers.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the applicant has met his onus of establishing a violation of the Code in this case.
Cohen v. Law School Admission Council, 2014 HRTO 537 (CanLII)[2]
[69] There is no dispute between the parties that the testing service offered by the respondent is a service within the meaning of section 1 of the Code or that the applicant’s ADHD is a disability as defined in s. 10(1).
[70] Rather, the primary dispute between the parties involves whether or not the respondent breached the applicant’s right to access the LSAT without discrimination. The parties articulate this somewhat differently; namely, they describe the issue as being whether or not the respondent breached the substantive or procedural component of the duty to accommodate by failing to provide the applicant with the accommodations he requested.
[71] The applicant also alleges that the misconduct proceedings were in breach of the Code on the basis that if the respondent had granted the accommodations he believes he is entitled to, then the events of February 8, 2010, would not have occurred.
References
- ↑ Gaisiner v. Method Integration Inc., 2014 HRTO 1718 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gfggl>, retrieved on 2021-11-15
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cohen v. Law School Admission Council, 2014 HRTO 537 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/g6kbp>, retrieved on 2021-11-15
