Its your human right not to wash your hands.

A B.C. woman who claimed to have a skin condition was fired from a McDonalds for refusing to wash her hands. She subsequently filed a human rights complaint against them with the B.C. Human Rights Commission.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ordered that McDonald's pay her not only $23,000 for "lost income", but an additional $25,000 for her "dignity and self-respect". You see, in B.C. a food preparation worker's self-respect trumps a company's commitment.

ezralevant.com...

Id much rather have a clean burger than a dirty one. This is a interesting case. I believe McDonald shouldnt had fired her. Just made sure her [snip] stayed on the register on bathroom/parking lot duties.

But seriously, have anyone heard of disposable gloves?

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]



removed censor circumvention

Third time a charm.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]

[edit on 17/4/08 by masqua]

I've worked in restaurants and washing your hands and wearing gloves are required by law.

It's not enough just to wash your hands, either. There is a prescribed manner in which your hands must be washed and you can be asked to demonstrate that method at any time by an inspector.

Your link is broken, so I didn't read the article, but I would venture to say that in my state, if you have a skin condition and can't wash your hands, you need to work in some other environment than a restaurant.


[edit on 2008/4/17 by GradyPhilpott]

After having spent a considerable amount of time searching that link and perusing a 78 page judgement by the court, I have to say that there is nothing in that ruling that even suggests that it is one's right to not wash one's hands, although it might very well be, or that it is the right of an employee to work in a restaurant and not wash his hands because of a skin condition.

This case revolves around whether or not McDonald's adequately accommodated the claimant's disability and whether or not McDonald's was fair and honest in their interaction with the claimant prior to her dismissal.

The title of this thread and the title of the blog entry which you cite are both not only misleading, but also suggests that that the source material was never even read.

For those who have the time to read this lengthy document, it can be found here.

Datt v. McDonald’s Restaurants (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 324


[edit on 2008/4/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Don't these employees sign contracts when they are hired to follow the rules that their company sets, or risk termination? It's breach of contract, regardless of skin condition. If it was bad enough, she could have gotten a doctor's note and requested gloves of some kind, but she didn't, was a slob, and for all I know, wanted to get fired and make easy money.

More than disgusting; if she was in the states, it might have been a different outcome. I only think it's fair if she has a rare disorder that makes her break out in hives when she gets wet, but everything else can have gloves. Gross.

reply to post by lnaphx


All your questions will be answered and more if you only take the time to read the history of the case, the testimomy of the witnesses, the summaries of the various doctors' report, etc.

It's a 78 page read, but it makes the case make perfect sense and you will see just how wrong you are in your speculations about this case.

Originally posted by lnaphx
If it was bad enough, she could have gotten a doctor's note and requested gloves of some kind, but she didn't, was a slob, and for all I know, wanted to get fired and make easy money.

Datt v. McDonald’s Restaurants (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 324


[edit on 2008/4/18 by GradyPhilpott]