Human Rights - Disability - Duty to Accomodate

Datt had worked for McAdams restaurant for 23 years (taking orders, cleaning) when in 2007 she came down with a skin condition on her hands that was made worse by frequent hand washing. She took several short-term disability leaves but her condition always worsened after she returned to work. McAdams said that frequent hand washing was necessary to maintain acceptable sanitary conditions, to meet both government regulations and its own hygiene policies. For example, the restaurant has a times system where a timer sounds each hour, and all crew members and the manager must wash their hands. Datt's doctor reported that she could not perform any job requiring frequent hand washing but there were duties she could perform, including cash, some food preparation, and some cleaning. However, in August 2009 the benefits provider told Datt she would not be able to return to work because "restaurant work was not good for her" and offered her a three-month job search program. In November 2009, McAdams terminated her employment. Datt filed a human rights application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission/Tribunal pursuant to Ontario law.
Please address the following issues in reviewing the merits of the human rights application:
Questions:
1.Did Datt have a disability? How is a "disability" defined pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code?
2.Was this a case of discrimination? Why or why not?
3.Did the employer have a duty to accommodate Datt and if so, did it fulfill that duty up to the point of undue hardship? Explain your answer.
4.If you were a member of the Tribunal, how would you decide this particular case?