64

Enough’s enough

Exclusive excerpt: How McDonald’s hand-washing policy was overruled


 

Enough's enoughIf British Columbia sounds like the land that common sense forgot when it comes to human rights, there’s good reason. Many of the most ridiculous case studies discussed in this book originate in that province.

Take, for instance, the time the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal declared that a McDonald’s restaurant employee had the human right not to wash her hands, even when she worked in the kitchen, and instead should be accommodated by finding her another job in the organization where handwashing was not essential. In theory this makes sense; but in practice, McDonald’s, who ought to know, say that there aren’t any positions that don’t require handwashing.

Also at Macleans.ca: Ezra Levant’s case against a tribunal system that flattens civil liberties in Canada

Beena Datt was a McDonald’s employee who claimed she’d developed a skin condition that prevented her from washing her hands in compliance with McDonald’s hygiene policy. That’s the same hygiene policy that has helped turn McDonald’s into a fast-food market leader here in the West and an embassy for Westerners travelling overseas. When you’re in a Third World country and tired of eating in hygiene-challenged local restaurants, you can count on a Western standard of cleanliness at McDonald’s.

Which is to say that McDonald’s handwashing policy isn’t just a matter of corporate pride, it’s a key to its business model. In British Columbia, it’s also a legal matter: both the Health Act and its Food Premises Regulation mandate rigorous hygiene policies. And then there’s the food protection guidelines issued by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. McDonald’s follows all of them.

No matter what you think of Big Macs and Quarter Pounders, you’ve got to concede that the folks at McDonald’s are clean freaks. Their rules not only require employees to wash their hands after using the bathroom, but also after shaking someone’s hand, after taking food out of the freezer, or after touching a door handle. They even have a little bell that goes off every hour to remind employees to all go wash their hands.

But Datt said she wouldn’t wash her hands—at least not more than once in a while. She said it hurt too much. McDonald’s tried to help. They gave her two months of disability leave, while Datt tried out different creams and lotions to alleviate her skin condition. She came back to work, but her hands started hurting again when she washed them.

Again, McDonald’s gave her disability pay, as different doctors tried to solve Datt’s condition, even checking her for exotic allergies. After 2½ years of disability leave punctuated by two more failed attempts to start working again, it became clear that Datt simply couldn’t do any of the jobs at McDonald’s that required food handling. Finally, McDonald’s let her go.

Other people might have moved on, looking for work where handwashing wasn’t required. But not Datt. She sued McDonald’s. Not for wrongful dismissal—handwashing was clearly a legitimate requirement of the job. Nor for reneging on the payment of disability insurance—McDonald’s certainly had been generous with that. In fact, Datt didn’t really sue the restaurant chain at all in the normal sense of the word, for they clearly had lived up to their employment obligations, and then some. Rather, Datt went to the people she knew would give her the kind of complaint-friendly “justice” she wanted: the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. And there she met a former divorce lawyer and left-wing lobbyist named Judy Parrack.

Parrack ruled that there was no evidence about whether Datt could function at McDonald’s if she washed her hands less often. Parrack was up and away, socking it to the big, evil corporation on behalf of a poor working woman. She ordered McDonald’s to pay Datt $23,000 for “lost income” and an additional $25,000 for her “dignity and self-respect.” The tribunal found no evidence that McDonald’s treated Datt disrespectfully other than the alleged violation of her right not to wash her hands as often as McDonald’s required. But that, apparently, was beside the point.

According to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, a kitchen worker’s self-respect trumps a company’s commitment to cleanliness. They violated her human rights. So McDonald’s was ordered to pay $50,000 plus interest. Parrack ruled that McDonald’s just didn’t do enough to accommodate their long-time employee. McDonald’s answer was simple: there was no job in the restaurant, including the manager, who wasn’t expected to handle food from time to time. There just wasn’t any reasonable way to keep on an employee who couldn’t or wouldn’t wash her hands as often as required. That wasn’t good enough for Parrack. So fifty grand it was.

But from the company’s perspective, even that outrageous penalty—plus two years of disability payments, plus three years of legal fees—wasn’t the worst of it. Nor was the tribunal’s invention of a standard for McDonald’s that was less stringent than McDonald’s required. No, it was the BCHRT order that McDonald’s “cease the discriminatory conduct or any similar conduct and refrain from committing the same or similar contravention.” Beena Datt and her unwashed hands no longer toil under the Golden Arches. But since the order applies to any future case similar to Datt’s, dozens of other fry jockeys could be emboldened to pass up soap and water under cover of human rights.

What would happen if, heaven forbid, someone contracted a disease from McDonald’s food because of this insane order? Could the victim sue the restaurant for failing to live up to its legal public health requirements, even though McDonald’s wanted to do so? Could the BCHRT itself be sued? What if it wasn’t just one customer who got an upset stomach, but a dozen people dying from E. coli? And why do we have to play such a risky game in any case, when the science behind food hygiene is settled?

Excerpted from Shakedown by Ezra Levant. Published by McClelland & Stewart Ltd. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.


 

Enough’s enough

  1. As bad as that story seems, and it looks awful, i gotta wonder how long Ezra had to wait for it to appear? Aren’t these kinds of stories rampant in the US? They are the most sue your ass off society on earth. Why isn’t Ezra complaining about that fact. He’d rather hi-light our defiencies – still this case sounds nuts!

    • Yes, the US is a more litigious society – that isn’t the point. The point is that people that want to sue for spurious reasons (for instance because of ideologically motivated vendettas) can go to human rights tribunals. This can be financially draining for defendants, even if they are likely to win, because they have to pay out of pocket to keep their case going. HRT’s have a much lower standard of proof and are not staffed by actual judges. It is like the government outsourced its primary function of maintaining law and order.

      I suppose I am a bit disappointed that Stephen Harper hasn’t done more to turn this situation around. I think most people would recognize that the status quo is pretty ridiculous. I salute Mr. Levant for not taking his own treatment by these kangaroo courts lying down.

      • seriously, that “righteous interference” with the HRT would be a bit much coming from PMStephen/the CRAP/”Decepti-Con”/National min-conserv party who sued the official opposition Mulroney style (read, Canadians by extension) for “misappropriation of personality” in a self-inflicted case of awareness and seeming approval of serious misconduct undertaken by “agents” of their party to bribe a dying MP; they also cynically labelled as a “pedophile” WITHOUT EVIDENCE the man/party whose position they lusted after, just to try and replace him, sullying the office of PM, and assaulted demonstrating activists whom they disagreed with; not to mention they brought an unelected MP into cabinet; oh, how about the in-and-out $-laundering thing to throw an election? or cutting and running from our troops? or NAFTA-gate interference in another country’s political process?–“um Barry won; what do we do?” Major Epic Fail on that one; cuz Obama is the Big League player they have to deal with now.

        what could PMStephen and the CRAP do for human rights? they’ve already utterly discredited what little credibility or integrity they had.

    • There are lots of cases like this one. There is no waiting required.

  2. What about the right of the consumer to know that the food they purchase at MacDonalds is safe?

    While I empathize with the employee that she has a skin sensitivity, if she is unable to comply with the safety precautions, then she should look for employment elsewhere. It seems to me that MacDonalds went above and beyond in assisting this employee.

    How can MacDonalds be faulted for setting high cleanliness standards?!

    Bureaucratic nonsense!!

    • ah, yes, the noble consumer,

      the increasingly erstwhile consumer that has shot itself in the foot by propping up multi-national corps like McD’s and AIG (and their own manufacturing jobs) starving out mom-and-pop establishments everywhere!

      all in the name of convenience and conformity.

      • ah, lame brain grammar strikes again…let me try again…

        ‘ah, yes, the noble consumer,

        the increasingly erstwhile consumer that has shot itself in the foot by propping up multi-national corps like McD’s and AIG, starving out mom-and-pop establishments (and snuffing out their own manufacturing jobs) everywhere!

        all in the name of convenience and conformity.

  3. What’s next? A solid human rights defense for blind bus drivers? As a long -haul trucker if I fail my medical I don’t get to keep my license. Will I be able to bring a human rights complaint if that happens? How is the risk of me killing someone due to a possible heart attack (which might not happen) any different from McDonald’s killing someone with food borne disease even though the chances may be remote? I’m embarrassed as a Canadian that we have these commissions in our relatively rational country.

    • blind bus drivers? don’t be ridiculous; ppl drive blindly right now; and want the help of technology so they can be driven automatically; where will the rational relevancy of your job be then? as a result, you will be more than embarrassed when you need representation as a Canadian.

      why Canadians are always embarrassed at the goose that laid the golden egg i will never get; we have a charter of rights and freedoms from which you directly benefit. rational as opposed to sensical–it never fails to amaze me that some ppl don’t know (or want to know) the difference. gawd, sometimes neither side seems to possess common sense.

      • What in God’s name does our charter of rights have to do with these human rights kangaroo courts that are totally out of controal. They are as anti-charter as anything I can think of. Anyone can file a complait against anyone(including you, Leenie) for the lamest of resons or no reson at all. You will be obliged to appear(and you better have expensive legal coucil). There is no such thing as a preliminary hearing to determine if the case has any merit or should be thown out. In fact there is no due process, no rules of evidence and no real judge. Your” judge” by the way, is most likely to be a feminist extremist with a political agenda and that is her only legal “credentials”. You will then subjected th a show trial worhy of Stalanist Russia where the good judge will determine if you hurt someone’s feeling! Even more amazingly the good judge will deterime what your “intent”, was in saying the offending words. In other words, she is de facto, claiming she can read your mind! Well, I guess if the show trail gig doesn’t work out for her she can go on tour with Reveen. But I digress. Remember, your lawyer is on the clock, the complaitant has free council. Also you are in front of civil servant drones who are essentially sitting around maxing out their pensions. So even if you win(unlikely as conviction rates are about 99%), you lose. These kangaroo courts override the charter of rights which is supposed to gaurentee basic things like freedom of speech and due process. I’m not sure if your post was an attempt at scarcasm or that you are on meds. These so called courts are not a laughing matter, they are scary. Kudos to Ezra Levant for attemting to reign in that bunch. Cheers.

      • My point Leenie, is that it has become more important in this case that this person feel good about themselves than that they actually have the ability to do their job. If she medically cannot perform and every other option has been explored well….I wouldn’t get cut a break if I medically couldn’t do my job. I simply wouldn’t have that job anymore and frankly, that’s the way it should be since I (and non-hand washing food services employees) could put the public at very real risk. As for the the Charter, I do benefit from it and it is the Charter that is being undermined by the HRCs. Also “sensical” is not a word. I’ll stick with rational thanks.

    • Bullsye,nuff said.

  4. What about gloves??
    Disposable latex gloves…

    • You have a point, although some people (e.g. customers) are dangerously allergic to latex. Vinyl gloves seem promising, so long as they changed their gloves as often as everyone else washes their hands. Then again, I would think that a skin condition that is too painful to allow hand washing might also preclude gloves.

  5. This is certainly an absurd ruling, an absurd question, absurd everything. And it is important because it goes to show that the absurdity of the HRT’s goes beyond the appalling attempt to curtail public discourse on sensitive issues, i.e. it’s not just about Free Speech (though that is rather more important).

    OK, all that granted, why doesn’t McDonald’s appeal? According to this article, which concerns another BCHRT ruling, it is quite easy to appeal an absurd verdict like this to a real court, namely the BC Court of Appeal. The BC Court of Appeal, like any real court, has the power to compensate the victor for legal expenses. Therefore, it seems to me, there is no need to incur large legal expenses in fighting a case before the BCHRT: you can save that money for the real court. In other words, it’s a red herring to argue that the HRT’s (whatever their other defects) are harmful because, in both frivolous and non-frivolous cases (there must be some of the latter), the defendant cannot be awarded legal costs.

    I think this is an important point. No real court (e.g. the BC Court of Appeal) would uphold the “right” to not comply with hygiene regulations; therefore it’s simply a matter of taking the case to that real court and winning, as one would do in the case of a normal frivolous lawsuit; all that has happened is that an extra layer has been added below the real court, in which extremely poor people can lodge complaints without incurring large legal expenses. That concept does not seem to me inherently bad, quite the contrary; the problem seems to me to be that, in cases like this one, the non-judge tribunal president has delivered a bizarre ruling. But that could happen in a normal court too, and the key thing is to get rid of whoever delivered the bizarre ruling.

    Free Speech is another category, of course: that is a question of principle, not a question of staffing.

    • ;-) respect.

      taking it to a real court involves real non-taxpayer/voter money doesn’t it?

  6. This makes me sad.
    These fn kangaroo courts are ruining what Human Rights were supposed to be about.

    They are their own worse enemy.

  7. This judge obviously doesn’t eat out much. At least at McDonald’s. Wonder if they gave any consideration of how broad this ruling could be interpreted. Just also wondering why hygienic gloves weren’t an alternative, they aren’t all latex.

  8. A far better analysis of this case appears at Donna Seale’s website. It kinda makes you wonder why people are so willing to accept the ridiculous, misleading crap that Ezra tries to pawn off on his gullible readership.

    • Yeah, because according to Donna Seale, a business is not required to follow actual workplace and health and safety guidelines, but rather that they should precognitively figure out what form of “accommodation” is demanded ad hoc by the human rights commission rulings.

      • “The evidence showed that McDonald’s did not take any steps to actually speak with Ms. Datt until the day she was called in to be terminated.” I’d say that’s a few steps short of precognition.

        • If they didn’t, then why was she granted two years of disability coverage?

          Listen, we have regulations governing the relationship between employers and employees for a reason. If they are unsatisfactory, then change the regulations through legislative action. Don’t leave employers on the hook to try and work out what they are supposed to do above and beyond those regulations after the fact.

          Besides, why is an employer obliged to give someone a living when they can no longer do the work anyway? Certainly this is something that the social safety net and retraining programs would be better equipped to handle.

          • The requirements for disability leave have some similarities with accommodation requirements but they aren’t identical and one can’t substitute for the other. An organization like McDonald’s should be large enough to have an effective HR body in place that can deal with these kind of issues, and although I haven’t read the decision, it seems they dropped the ball here.

          • That’s weak Mike. Besides, what if this was a small business like a deli or a bar? Are you so confident that the HRC would have ruled any differently? Frankly, if I was paid out the amount of disability that was required, I would probably call someone in to my office and terminate her too if she couldn’t come back to work for me. I’m not going to hire someone for another job that I’m not sure she can do, and it is pretty unjust to demand an employer should have to do so.

          • ALL businesses are required to follow the law, and small or large size is not an excuse. But it’s always noteworthy when an enormous one with termendous resources makes a foul-up like this. As for everything else, this is exactly the kind of thing that gets companies who don’t bother to inform themselves of their obligations into hot water. An employer would have to make a real evaluation of an employee’s suitability for a position which didn’t affect their handicap, not just fire them with mealy-mouthed “oh, I didn’t know if they could do that other job.” It’s what the disabled deserve and quite frankly it’s upsetting for Levant to be telling half-truths at their expense.

          • That’s a nice position to take from someone who obviously doesn’t risk his own money or try to generate his own wealth. The only way you are going to be successful in a business is if you hire the best person for the job. The social safety net exists to care for the vulnerable, that’s why we share the expense collectively.

            So Mike, tell me what steps are guaranteed, in writing, to have resolved this situation in favor of the company? Leaving aside that McDonald’s didn’t do “enough”, where was it written outside of this decision the steps they should have taken?

            But hey, if the only way to deal with employees is to ensure that you can fight against the bureaucrat’s discretion rather than actual regulations that you can follow then the only people that are going to be able to hire people are corporations who can amass enough manpower and wealth to take on the HRC’s. Just another thing to squeeze small businesses out. Congratulations.

          • I imagine the employer’s shortcomings are set out in the HRCs determination itself, which I might track down and read in full sometime in the future. And the accommodation model under human rights codes is not a threat to business efficacy, in fact it’s the opposite because it protects the right of the disabled to participate more fully in the workforce rather than be subject to arbitrary whims.

          • I imagine the employer’s shortcomings are set out in the HRCs determination itself, which I might track down and read in full sometime in the future. And the accommodation model under human rights codes is not a threat to business efficacy, in fact it’s the opposite because it protects the right of the disabled to participate more fully in the workforce rather than be subject to arbitrary whims.

          • And like literally hundreds of other areas of law, specifics cannot always be written down so that exact procedures for every imaginable circumstance is clearly laid out. The principle is clear, but application will necessarily vary by circumstances. Otherwise society would come to a halt faster than communist Russia.

        • “a few steps short of precognition”…

          a few steps short of credibility too.

      • Channelling Levant himself in interpreting these things I see. You don’t have to be precognitive, but you do have to make real attempt to evaluate the disability and accommodate it. ‘Sorry, there’s a policy’ usually doesn’t satisfy the requirement.

        • And how come Jack gets to post full links and mine get eaten. UNFAIR SPECIAL TREATMENT!!!

          • Mikes are a dime a dozen around here. There’s only one Jack Mitchell.

    • I think McDonalds went out of thier way to accomidate this woman. People die from ecoli contaminated food. How long did it take Jack in the box to recover after people died eating its food. Because it is fast food one person could handle dozens of customers food within one hour.

      I am afraid of heights, that means that it is not safe for me to work in construction. It would not be descrimination if a construction can not hire me because I can not work in the top level of a building without having an anxiety attack. I just accept that I should work in a different field and get on with my life. It is not descrimination.

      • Yes but imagine the money to be made in not working but suing people because you can’t perform the work. Amazing how this “human rights” scam works. If she was on disability then she knew a choice had to made, but she let Mcdonald’s make it for her.

    • Um, so your saying Lavant was totally lying here, this case never happened. MacDonald’s never had to pony up 50K after over two years of trying to accomidate her? He just made it all up. Total fiction and McLean’s just printed it nilly willie? I guess that Kangaroo court never hauled Mclean’s and Steyn into court on trumped up charges. That crazy preacher was never hauled in and told not to open his mouth ever again about gays. Why do I think you are just another Steyn hater. Cheers.

      • I am saying the article is misleading and contains inaccuracies, yes. If Macleans wanted to give an accurate portrayal of what went on, they failed miserably by creating this article.

        I am also saying your level of reading comprehension is very poor.

  9. making a mountain out of a molehill. a few stupid decisions do not a faulty tribunal make.

    i c why we need GHG sequestration what with all the Levant hot air; he needs to grow up. so do a few on the tribunal. i doubt this stupidity is the rule on both sides of this issue though. there’s obviously nothing “common” about common sense. i’d like to see better representatives of these very real concerns here; this side-show won’t fly.

    “No matter what you think of Big Macs and Quarter Pounders, you’ve got to concede that the folks at McDonald’s are clean freaks.” must *have* to concede huh? fail.

    u ever work at McD’s in a McJob? if you think they are clean freaks i got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

    • There are more than just a few stupid decisions. And additionally, I’m sure you’d feel differently if you were the one taken to court and forced to cough up tens of thousands in legal bills.

      Secondly, you clearly know nothing about McDonald’s, because they are clean freaks. If a particular franchise does not adhere to standards, the headquarters will shut it down. And yes, I’ve had a mcjob, and the restaurant was spic and span. If there was dirt around the managers were fired.

      • you are *sure* about a lot sf…and nothing’s *clear* about your assessment about my knowledge of working @ McD’s; you *sure* you’re not a McD rep?

        • Of course he’s not a McD’s rep! Look at him: he’s a BABY!

  10. with free speech on the brain, i’m wondering about Levant’s take on Galloway being prevented from entering Canada against the wishes of a lot of Canadians (Jews/Hebrews included) increasingly curious about what Galloway has to say. does he support Canadian’s rights to hear the man in this respect?

  11. OK, I read the decision, it’s 78 pages and its on the BCHRC’s website, from August 3, 2007. The employee could wash her hands to a limited extent and there were some forms of gloves that she could wear to a limited extent to be able to engage in some work activities. She mentioned certain jobs on each shift that required less handling or no handling of food that she felt she could handle, and there was some evidence that employees on these tasks washed their lands less than required by the employer policy.

    The hand-washing code, while laudable in itself [my interpretation] didn’t necessarily mirror any legal requirements (which were only that hands be washed as often as possible to prevent food contamination).

    The big issue was that McDs didn’t take any of this into account as they are legally required to do. They merely fired here at the meeting where she thought she would be discussing under what terms she would be coming back to work. The commission noted it was possible there was no way she could work there anymore, but that McD’s hadn’t really done any consideration at all to see if that was possible (then there’s a section on whether the employer could rely on the benefits assessment as an accommodation practice, and the answer is ‘no’)

    All in all it is a reasonable decision, unless you feel that an employer should be able to fire an employee for any preceived health inability to do a job.

    • Because McDs is a big outfit many people just shrug and say it’s the cost of doing business. How about mom and pop operations that live and die on the margins. Would we watch the local coffee shop close over this and see it the same way?

      • The size of a business and the number of actual positions are definitely factors that are taken into consideration in evaluation the accommodation process. Financial considerations as well, but I bet the legitimate ones get drowned out in the sea of “OMG my bizness will FAIL if I have to tinker with things to adapt to a handicapped worker.”

        • What your saying is that bigger outfits have to have a social conscience while fragile companies may get a pass. I have no problem with government safety nets for those in our society willing or truly unable to contribute, but I don’t want corporations as our benevolent benefactors. Make hiring rules and let the market decide.

          • Please read more carefully if you are going to employ the phrase “What your saying”.

    • Thanks Mike for looking into this. If the real issue is whether or not McDonald’s followed proper procedure then the question I have is what is the employee responsibility here? After two and a half years of disability and two returns to work did she bring up the possibility of gloves or of the jobs she could performs without washing? Is the onus on the employer to find a solution?

      • If I remember correctly it was part of the benefit insurer’s evaluation, which would have been available to the employer. According to the judgment she was a very dedicated employee who was eager to return to work; it certainly it wasn’t like McDs was asking and she was with-holding the information. [It’s also worth noting gloves weren’t a complete solution, most types apparently also affected her skin, and there were some problems with the one type of more acceptable gloves, as well]

        Once a disability comes to an employer’s attention, the employer would be responsible for initiating the accommodation process itself and in most cases would work with an employee to try to find something the employee could do and the employer could live with. Certainly if the employee didn’t speak up about measures he/she knew of that could lessen or eliminate the problem or refused to take these measures, then she couldn’t turn around and make them the basis of a human rights complaint.

  12. Isn’t hand washing part of a food preparers job description, you know, the job this woman freely applied for and freely accepted.

  13. Handwashing is legal mandatory in all food and related clean industry. It is law. Food workers must take food handling classes and tested. If workers are found not in compliance the business can be fined, shut down and employees fired. It is about food safety for crying out loud.
    I went to US hospital recently. I am a yank in Canada, and had some blood work done but the nurse had a skin condition that looked bad, a rash she did, however wash her wands first. In some cases in the US especially in food processing, computer chip processing and what the FDA and local govt deem clean rooms, an employee can simply fired for having such uncoverable undealable situations. You sign rules of such employment rules before you are hire. Thank god! I do not want anyone touching my food has has not washed thier hands. That is totally unacceptable! glad i gave up eating fast food in Canada. To expensive!

  14. This case reminds of why SARS spread like wildifre in Canada and not in the US. Simple cleanliness. I see people in apts place shoes outside the door, it does not matter if the halls are never cleaned or sanatized and walls and doors and door knobs and lighswitcher are never cleaned. This story is making me ill!

    • Don’t be ridiculous. Canada is much cleaner than the USA. I’ve lived in both and I can vouch for the fact. Not that it particularly matters.

    • Sorry “a mom” but your SARS-cause analysis is ideological , not fact based.

      SARS showed up in BC and Ontario.
      In BC the public health system prevented the spread beyond the initial carriers (from China).
      In the Mike-Harris-devastated province of Ontario the public health system failed leading to a major health/economic catastrophe.

      • Ok Northern PoV give me a percentage of the Ontario budget you would designate to health care. Now once you’ve done that ,any bad thing that happens to the population health wise because that percentage wasn’t high enough will be your fault.
        It’s people like you that would bankrupt the government due to squishy emotion based economics.
        I know you guys need a boogieman like Harris to blame life on, but try and think things through to a logical conclusion.

        • Harris ran a deficit (except the one hid just before the 99 election – by selling off the 407).
          It ain’t how much money you spend, it is how you spend it and right wing always blows it on their friends.

          it takes a Clinton to clean up from a Bush mesh (lets hope Obama is up to it) and Chretian to clean up a Mulrooney mess – (McGuinty to fix a Harris mess)
          – who will fix us up after Herbert-Harper??

  15. This just one absurd cases among many others from human rights commissions and tribunals across the country.

    Unfortunately the government is simply not acting and so as it gets worse, the only solution is as Ezra says “Fire. Them. All” and start again.

  16. I don’t know how this person can show her face in this article, I mean talk about a scam. I’ve never heard such rubbish suing a restaurant because they require that their employees wash their hands. I hope McDonalds plans on appealing this silly ruling. I can’t believe she received all those DI payments as well.

    I swear the world is going to hell in a hand-basket. When legitimate causes for Human Rights are ignored or abused these types of cases are made to look much more important to the world. The lawyers handling such ridiculous so called human rights abuses must be the dummiest lot of all because no self-respecting attorney (if there is such a thiing) would waste valuable time on something like this. Shame on that woman for actually claiming this as a violation of her human rights. Absolutely unbelievable!

  17. In principle, and by law, where an employee has a medical condition an employer is required to accommodate that employee to the point of undue hardship. Is Mr. Levant saying that’s a bad thing. Is he saying that employer’s should ignore this law?

    Each case turns on it’s own facts. MacDonald’s is a big outfit. They will have more of a “buffer” to accommodate difficult cases such as this than a small mom and pop shop and in that case the answer here may have been different. Think of it, she loses a job, McD’s loses $60.00 a day. There are also many types of aids that can be used that McD’s may not have considered.

    One of the things that you should always consider is that there is always someone bigger and faster and better equipped than yourself, at least at some time in your life. We should all be thankful that society has moved on to a point where that time in your life will be accommodated.

  18. I would like to see somebody get sick from a McDonald employee not washing there hands and then sue the BC Govt and every other Govt body for allowing people to work without washing their hands. What a crazy story of events!!!

  19. Human rights are important, but in this case, they are being slightly twisted to favour an individual over a horde of other innocent people.
    I believe that McDonald's did the right things by allowing their disabled employee to have time off to try and recover. However, if McDonald's had made just the one small thing to find a different job for their employee, this human rights case may never have escalated into this uncertainty. The ruling of the BC Human rights court that demands that McDonald's not enforce their strict policy of employees washing their hands frequently, is not only disgusting, but also goes against the rules of BC Foodsafe! If an inspector were to inspect that particular restaurant, and follow the BC Foodsafe conduct, the restaurant would be forced to close down. Wonder why that hasn't happened yet?

  20. Employees of McDonalds violate people’s human rights every day.
    Will Datt give some of her pay to them?

Sign in to comment.