The National Medical Commission (NMC) announced that candidates cannot be denied admission to MBBS courses under the quota for Persons with Disabilities (PwBD) solely because they possess a temporary disability certificate or a Unique Disability ID card (UDID).
However, the NMC clarified that the disability status of these candidates will continue to be verified by Medical Assessment Boards (MABs) until they are deemed suitable to participate in the consultations.
The long-running legal case concerning alleged discrimination between the Cape Town International Convention Centre (CTICC) and a former employee is approaching its conclusion. Legal arguments will determine whether she was subjected to unfair discrimination and wrongful termination.
The former Food and Beverage Department administrator, Magosi Letimile, challenges CTICC's actions regarding her treatment during employment and the termination of her contract for operational reasons in April 2021.
Letimile, who uses a wheelchair, claimed that she faced direct and indirect discrimination due to her disability, as well as intersecting grounds of race and gender.
Her case also involves allegations of automatically unfair dismissal, procedural and substantive unfairness during redundancy, and violation of her constitutional rights.
According to court documents, Letimile was continuously employed by CTICC from August 2019 to April 2021. She was hired under an initiative aimed at candidates with disabilities, and she was promised training and support for returning to work after developing a disability.
However, she stated that CTICC failed to provide the promised training, suitable equipment, and reasonable accommodation necessary for her to perform her duties independently.
Documents assert that the work environment became hostile, and Letimile experienced harassment, exclusion, and lack of understanding from managers and leadership. She claimed this attitude persisted throughout her employment and later extended to the termination process.
Among the issues raised was the equipment required of her in the food and beverage department. Letimile claims that the label cutter intended for her duties could not operate effectively while seated, as it required significant downward pressure. She allegedly had to rely on the help of other staff or manually cut hundreds of labels with scissors, sometimes having to work after hours.
Although a label cutter suitable for use in a wheelchair was eventually provided, Letimile claims it subsequently disappeared and was not replaced. Her court filings also detailed disputes regarding flexible working hours, transportation solutions, and the impact of power outages on her ability to enter or exit her eighth-floor apartment.
Letimile stated that she depended on the elevator and could not leave the building during power outages. On one occasion, she said, she was trapped in the elevator and required physical assistance to be rescued, leaving her stressed and in pain.
She also claimed that requests to make up for working hours on weekends were denied, despite other employees being allowed to work on weekends. Additional accusations concern her health and co-morbidities related to Covid-19.
Letimile asserted that she was forced to attend personal meetings regarding her dismissal despite expressing concerns about the health risks she faced as a disabled and immunocompromised employee. She also claimed that CTICC applied the same Covid-19 protocols to her as to other employees, disregarding her individual medical circumstances.
According to the documents, Letimile's position was not initially designated as redundant. However, another employee whose position was allegedly made redundant requested to take her place under the 'last in, first out' (LIFO) principle. Letimile argues that this employee was a healthy man with approximately a month more seniority and qualifications unrelated to her role.
She contended that CTICC failed to consider that applying the LIFO principle and replacement could disproportionately harm disabled employees who were recently hired through targeted recruitment programs. Her documents argue that applying LIFO without considering disability and equal employment opportunities can perpetuate the historical exclusion of people with disabilities from the workforce.
She maintained that the selection process resulted in her being dismissed from a position specifically suited for her, which was then filled by a healthy employee. Letimile believes this made her dismissal automatically unfair due to disability and substantively unfair.
The matter was initially referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration in May 2021. After the parties failed to resolve the dispute through conciliation, a certificate of outcome was issued in June 2021, and the dispute was transferred to the Labour Court as an alleged automatically unfair dismissal due to disability.
Letimile is seeking R500,000 in non-pecuniary damages for alleged pain, suffering, humiliation, trauma, and violation of her dignity. She is also claiming compensation equivalent to 24 months' salary for the alleged automatically unfair dismissal, as well as compensation for lost training and career advancement opportunities.
Furthermore, she requests R1 million in constitutional compensation for the alleged violation of her rights to dignity, bodily and psychological integrity, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. She also seeks coverage of legal costs and interest on any awarded sum.
CTICC's representative, Olivia Bruce, stated that the case remains before the Labour Court. Bruce noted: 'The case is currently before the Labour Court, and CTICC respects the judicial process, which is not yet concluded.' She emphasized that all allegations outlined in Letimile's court documents are yet to be verified and determined by the Labour Court.
Thousands of students who received an MBBS degree cannot take foreign licensing exams because their educational institutions have not initiated the process of obtaining an 'ECFMG sponsor note' in the World Directory of Medical Schools. This official note confirms that the medical college meets the standards set by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG).
The World Directory is intended to register all medical schools recognized by local authorities or relevant ministries worldwide. However, having a school in this directory does not guarantee the presence of sponsor notes required for students to obtain certification from the ECFMG credentialing agency. Colleges can apply for credential verification only after the first group of students has graduated or approximately five years after the enrollment of that first group.
Typically, institutions begin the procedure when their first cohort undergoes the mandatory 12-month rotating medical internship. Nevertheless, many students discover after completing MBBS that their colleges have not obtained ECFMG sponsor notes. Most students do not check for such notes until they graduate, when they plan to take exams such as the USMLE (United States Medical Licensing Examination), PLAB UK, or other licensing tests.
Graduates of Kalpana Chawla Medical College in Karnal, Haryana, discovered that their college lacks ECFMG sponsor notes despite having admitted the first batch in 2017. A similar situation is observed in some AIIMS institutions. In response to a Right to Information (RTI) request, the National Medical Commission (NMC) stated that information or documents for updating the ECFMG sponsor note for Indian medical colleges are provided by ECFMG immediately after the proper procedure is completed and approved by the competent authority.
On June 30, the NMC reported that the process of providing ECFMG information for updating notes in the world directory is underway for several colleges. Furthermore, the NMC and the Union Ministry of Health did not respond to TOI's queries regarding whether it is mandatory for all Indian medical colleges to contact ECFMG in a timely manner and about student complaints on this matter.
