Reasonable accommodation

A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a proven need. That need can vary. Accommodations can be religious, physical, mental or emotional, academic, or employment related and are often mandated by law. Each country has its own system of reasonable accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, saying refusal to make accommodation results in discrimination. It defines a 'reasonable accommodation' as:... necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a proven need. That need can vary. Accommodations can be religious, physical, mental or emotional, academic, or employment related and are often mandated by law. Each country has its own system of reasonable accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, saying refusal to make accommodation results in discrimination. It defines a 'reasonable accommodation' as: In Canada equality rights, as set out in provincial and federal anti-discrimination laws and in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, require that accommodation be made to various minorities. With a new addition being 'family status' being included as well. (The origin of the term reasonable accommodation in Canadian law is found in its labour law jurisprudence, specifically Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, 2 SCR 536, and is argued to be the obligation of employers to change some general rules for certain employees, under the condition that this does not cause 'undue hardship'.) In Quebec, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the provincial charter of human rights, politicians engaged in 'values' clarifications on accommodation from at least 2007. In that time, various ideologies attempted to impose onto Quebecers definitions of values, without consensus or even legislative success. The question on what was and will be the national identity has been contested, such as the court decision on the wearing of the Sikh kirpan in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys. The municipal council of the town of Hérouxville passed a 'code of conduct' for residents. It provided details of expectations of behaviour, and defined practices of other countries that were not acceptable in the town, such as stoning women or burning them alive, and female genital mutilation. The code of conduct also explained common practices in Canadian culture. It said that carrying a weapon to school (a reference to the Sikh ceremonial kirpan), covering one's face (some particular forms of the Muslim veil), and making accommodation for prayer in public schools would not be permitted. It attests that 'Our people eat to nourish the body, not the soul,' in reference to Jewish and Muslim dietary laws, and that health-care professionals 'do not have to ask permission to perform blood transfusions.' This code of conduct was developed as the town and province absorbed more immigrants from other cultures. Other cultural questions arose. In 2007 a YMCA set up clouded windows to shield ultra-Orthodox Jews who had complained that youngsters could see girls and women in gym attire. There have been questions about whether voters are allowed to fill out and submit ballots while clothed in a niqab or burka, which can hide identity. A Muslim spokesman said that women are always required to show identity for public purposes, so it was a question raised unnecessarily.