No. 07-00-529/2017-02  Date: 5^th March 2017

OPINION

This Opinion was issued in the procedure following the complaint of attorney J.J.T, filed on behalf and with the consent of M.R, against A.S, psychologist and A.A, MD specialised in occupational medicine on account of discrimination on the grounds of the health state of M.P.   The complaint states that the psychologist from the Health Centre in Š told M.R that she would not be able to pass the medical examination solely due to the existence of a psychiatric diagnosis. A.A, MD specialising in occupational medicine signed the opinion and the conclusion which determined that M.R is not able to perform professional tasks pertaining to the work of a child’s personal companion and the decision was issued for a one-year period. The petitioner filing the complaint considers that M.R is being discriminated against on the grounds of her health state. In the statement pertaining to the claims in the complaint, the psychologist employed with the Health Centre in Š provided the rationale behind their professional stance whereby M.R is not able to perform professional tasks pertaining to the work of a child’s personal companion. A.A, MD also added that only a specialist in the field of occupational medicine may determine working ability, and that the opinions of other professionals are only consultative in nature. In this particular case, the physician specialising in occupational medicine, A.A, MD considers that M.R is not able to perform professional tasks pertaining to the work of a child’s personal companion. The psychologist A.S has the same stance, even though their opinion is merely consultative in nature. On the other hand, the Occupational Medicine Department at the privately-owned Health Centre “H” has a different stance regarding the work ability of M.R pertaining to performing professional tasks pertaining to the work of a child’s personal companion. Lj.T, MD, employed in the General Hospital in Š holds a view that M.R is able to perform professional tasks pertaining to the work of a child’s personal companion. Hence, the issue is the conflict of professional opinions with regards to the working ability of M.R i.e. performing a particular job – child’s personal companion. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, acting within its legally prescribed mandate, determined that M.P was not treated differently during the procedure for the issuing of the certificate on the health state in the Health Centre in Š in relation to the defined procedures of the Occupational Health Department pertaining to the assessment of the working ability of candidates seeking employment, nor was the conclusion referring to their inability to perform professional tasks pertaining to the work of a child’s personal companion given beforehand solely due to the existence of a specific diagnosis. In addition, M.R was not denied medical services, nor was she restricted by special conditions for medical services which were not grounded in medical reasons. Furthermore, it was determined that M.R has not been the subject of harassment, insults or degradation during her stay in the healthcare institution. Having in mind the aforementioned, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has issued the opinion that the psychologist A.S and A.A, MD specialising in occupational medicine have not breached any of the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination.