Family status – a ground of discrimination just like any other

CNR employees terminatedSome recent cases (here, here and here) make the message very clear to employers: you cannot minimize or ignore requests for accommodation on the basis of family status. Such requests must be treated in the same way as requests for accommodation based on any other protected ground in human rights legislation. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently decided that when Canadian National Railway (CNR) terminated three employees because they failed to accept a transfer to a new position out of province, the company discriminated against them based on the ground of family status. The women were given 15 days’ notice. They felt they could not fill the shortage and move due to their child care responsibilities.

  • One mother had a young son who had just been diagnosed with respiratory difficulties and had scheduled appointments with specialists in the city
  • One mother had a child-custody agreement that required 90 days’ notice for taking the children out of the city
  • One mother was unable to make child care arrangements given that no information was provided about the duration of the stay or the station they would be working

When the mothers asked to be excused from the transfer requirement, CNR gave them a brief extension, but ultimately terminated them.

The tribunal ordered CNR to review its accommodation policy, especially in the area of family status, including parental obligations. The tribunal also reinstated the women and awarded them compensation for lost wages, pain and suffering ($15,000), wilful or reckless conduct ($20,000), along with costs and interest.

The tribunal commented on the way CNR treated the employees and responded to their requests; ultimately, CNR ignored the women and did nothing to accommodate them.

What employers can learn from these cases is that, when confronted with requests involving the ground of family status, discuss the situation with the employee and learn about the employee’s particular needs. Employers are recommended to be proactive and open when considering possible forms of accommodation. The duty to accommodate is significant and must be to the point of undue hardship.

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

Share

Related Posts

Imagen 1

Employees with disabilities – accommodation strategies (Part I)

Accommodating employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship under human rights legislation can be a complicated task. It’s important to make sure the accommodation process goes smoothly and the employee can focus on working as efficiently as possible, but employers may not be sure about what kinds of questions to ask disabled employees in order to meet their needs.

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD

Read more
Imagen 1

Slaw: Canadian Human Rights Commission’s controversial ‘anti-hate’ policy

The Canadian Human Rights Commission recently posted a policy on its website concerning how it interprets and applies section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) when it receives an inquiry or complaint. The purpose of section 13 of the Act is to balance Canadians’ rights to equality and freedom of expression with respect to hate messages, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The parliamentary record indicates that section 13 was initially included in the legislation to address activities of individuals and groups who used the telephone system to disseminate hate messages. In December 2001, parliament amended the CHRA by adding section 13(2), which makes it clear that Internet hate messages come under the jurisdiction of the commission.

Read the whole article on Slaw.ca.

Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor

Read more
Imagen 1

The new age of workplace gossip – TMI!

I’ve discussed workplace gossip here before, and what bosses can do to prevent it or at least reduce the potential harm, but there are a couple of hyper-modern developments that I didn’t get into: reality television and the Internet. These two things have created a culture of “sharing”, for lack of a better word, that encourages people at play or work to divulge the most mundane and private details of their lives to others—the kind of information that one previously might only have shared with family or best friends.

Adam Gorley

Read more