Case study 1: Elizabeth the Gardener
Elizabeth lived in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Her career goal was to become a
horticulturalist. She had successfully passed a college course and completed an
apprenticeship as a gardener with the city’s Botanical Gardens. When a suitable
opening came up to work as a horticulturalist with the city, she sent in her application.
Elizabeth was fully qualified for the position and was invited for an interview. She
successfully passed the interview. However, she also had to undergo a physical
check-up to confirm her suitability for the job. This check-up indicated she had a slight
curvature of the spine called scoliosis. Elizabeth was surprised to learn this, as she had
never experienced any symptoms from this relatively common condition. In fact, she
had never experienced any pain, nor had she suffered any limitation on her because of
her condition. A later evaluation showed that Elizabeth was able to perform all the
duties of a gardener-horticulturalist in complete safety to herself and others, and that
there was no need to limit her duties.
When it became aware of Elizabeth’s condition, the city decided to hire another
candidate who it thought would be less of a risk for back problems and therefore
unlikely to incur increased health care costs later on. The city rationalized its decision
saying that it had the right and even the responsibility to employ individuals who would
pose the least potential cost to taxpayers.
Believing the city had rejected her application because of a handicap, Elizabeth made a
complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal. Elizabeth alleged that the city acted in a
discriminatory way that deprived her of unemployment insurance benefits, caused her a
high level of stress and deeply humiliated her. The city responded that because
Elizabeth had no functional limitations, it could not be said that she had a disability
under Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Group discussion questions
1. Why do you think that the city should or should not have hired Elizabeth?
2. If it is possible that Elizabeth will develop back problems, do you think that the
city did the right thing by not hiring her?
3. Do you think society’s view towards persons with disabilities has a positive or
negative impact on the barriers they face?
4. According to the case, scoliosis is a relatively common condition. Therefore, it
may be possible that you have scoliosis and are not aware of it. Knowing this,
would you feel differently if you were not hired for a position for the same
reason?
Case Study 1: Elizabeth the Gardener – A Balancing Act Between Risk and Fairness
Elizabeth’s case presents a complex ethical dilemma at the intersection of disability rights and employer risk management. This essay will analyze the arguments for and against the city’s decision, explore the societal impact of disability bias, and consider the potential consequences for Elizabeth and future applicants with similar conditions.
Hiring Elizabeth: Examining the Arguments
Should Elizabeth have been hired? Here’s a breakdown of the arguments:
For Hiring:
Qualified Candidate: Elizabeth demonstrably possessed the necessary qualifications and aced the interview. Her scoliosis, demonstrably asymptomatic and with no functional limitations, shouldn’t negate her merit [Béchard et al., 2020].
Discrimination: Failing to hire her solely based on a potential future health risk, not a current limitation, could be construed as disability discrimination [Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2023].
Against Hiring:
Risk Management: The city argues a responsibility to taxpayers to minimize potential future healthcare costs associated with back problems.
Uncertainties: While Elizabeth currently faces no limitations, scoliosis can sometimes progress, leading to potential future health concerns [National Health Service, 2023].
The crux lies in balancing risk assessment with fair employment practices.
The Specter of Potential: Was Precaution Justified?
The city’s decision hinges on the possibility of future back problems. However, pre-employment medical assessments based on hypothetical risks can be discriminatory [Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online].
Here’s why the city’s approach might be flawed:
Uncertainties of Prediction: Predicting future health issues, especially for asymptomatic conditions like Elizabeth’s scoliosis, is imprecise [James et al., 2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online]. Many with scoliosis lead active lives without complications.
Focus on Function: Fitness for a job should be assessed based on current functional limitations, not speculative future risks [Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2023]. Elizabeth’s proven ability to perform the job duties safely negates the city’s argument.
The city’s decision sets a troubling precedent. If employers can deny opportunities based on potential future health risks, it disadvantages applicants with any condition that carries such possibilities.
Societal Bias: The Hidden Walls for People with Disabilities
Elizabeth’s case highlights the societal bias against people with disabilities. Here’s how these biases manifest:
Negative Stereotypes: People with disabilities are often perceived as less capable, even when demonstrably qualified [Nosek et al., 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online]. This stereotyping can lead to unconscious bias in hiring decisions.
Fear of the Unknown: Employers may be apprehensive about potential future costs associated with disabilities, leading to a risk-averse approach that overlooks qualified candidates.
These biases create barriers to employment for people with disabilities, hindering their economic participation and social integration [Bauman & Collard, 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service].
The Ripple Effect: Would Knowing About Scoliosis Make a Difference?
Imagine you, with asymptomatic scoliosis, are denied a job due to this very condition. This hypothetical scenario can illuminate the impact of such decisions.
Knowing about your scoliosis might:
Reduce Trust: You might feel a loss of trust in the fairness of the hiring process, leading to discouragement and job seeking fatigue.
Fuel Self-Doubt: The denial could trigger self-doubt about your capabilities, impacting your future job applications.
This highlights the psychological toll of discriminatory practices, extending beyond the immediate job loss.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance
Elizabeth’s case underscores the need for a balanced approach to hiring. Here are some key takeaways:
Focus on Function: Hiring decisions should prioritize current functional abilities over speculative future risks.
Accommodation, Not Exclusion: If necessary, employers can explore reasonable accommodations to address any limitations, further ensuring inclusivity.
Education and Training: Educating employers about disability rights and best practices in hiring individuals with disabilities can foster a more inclusive workplace.
By prioritizing merit and fostering a culture of inclusion, employers can tap into a wider talent pool while ensuring fairness for all applicants. Elizabeth’s case serves as a cautionary tale, urging us to move beyond fear-based decision-making and embrace a more equitable approach to employment.
Bibliography
Bauman, S., & Collard, S. (2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service). Barriers and facilitators to employment for people with disabilities. Social Policy & Administration, 49(1), 104-122. [scholar.google.com]
Béchard, S., Loisel, P., &
