Employment Equality Act 1995 Case Study

This assignment is a case study that explores the scenario of Gini, a teaching dance instructor who faces physical difficulties after an accident. The employer, Jim, terminates her due to concerns about her ability to perform as a dance teacher. However, it is discovered that accommodating Gini would not cause undue hardship and would be in line with the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equality Act 1995, which aim to ensure equality in employment for women, disabled persons, people with disabilities, and visible minorities.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
Employment Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Table of Contents
Case study 1.....................................................................................................................................2
Issue.............................................................................................................................................2
Rule..............................................................................................................................................2
Application..................................................................................................................................4
Case Study 2....................................................................................................................................5
Issue.............................................................................................................................................5
Rule..............................................................................................................................................5
Application..................................................................................................................................7
Reference list...................................................................................................................................9

2
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Case study 1
Issue
Whether Suzie has committed discrimination against Barry
Rule
According to section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act [CHRA], employers are
prohibited from discriminating against employees on 13 grounds stipulated under this provision
(Barak 2016). The employers are obligated to accommodate employees in order to avoid such
discrimination to the extent such employers do not face undue hardships while exercising such
duty after considering the safety, cost and health of the employees as was ruled in Canada
(Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General) [2015] 3 FCR 103, 2014 FCA 131.
The grounds of discrimination stipulated under section 2 of the CHRA are enumerated
below:
 Religion; Race; Color; Age; Sexual discrimination; Sexual orientation; genetic characteristics; family status; Disability;

3
EMPLOYMENT LAW
 Conviction for an offence;
In regards to disability, it refers to a mental or physical condition that is ongoing, permanent
periodic or continuous in nature. Such disability must significantly restrict or limit the ability of
the individual to carry out certain important functions of life like employment. Disabilities may
be of physical nature such as need for a wheelchair or invisible disability such as behavioral,
mental health or learning health issues (Adams 2016).
The duty to accommodate aims at removing discriminating hindrances associated with the 13
discriminatory grounds that are prohibited to the extent it causes undue hardship to the employer.
The duty of the employer to accommodate the employees also arises from the problems related
to the performance of the employees (Adams 2016). A supervisor or manager is obligated to
determine if any employee requires accommodation even if the employee has not asked for the
same.
The following circumstances signify whether further investigation for accommodation is
required to be made:
 Feedback from the co-workers about change in the behavioral conduct of the employee; Sudden changes in behavioral conduct; or
 Unusual poor work performance;
Under any of the above circumstances, it is mandatory to establish that the employer had
discussed about the change in the behavioral conduct with the employee and have offered him
with accommodation severally but the employee did not wish to continue with the
accommodation.

4
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Further, there are certain exceptions to the duty of accommodation to ensure the right of
an employer to operate in a productive workplace. A manager or supervisor is not required to
exercise his duty to accommodate under the following circumstances:
 where the employer faces undue hardship in terms safety, cost and health by exercising
accommodation;
 where the employee is unable to perform his or her employment responsibilities despite
providing accommodations to the employee;
Application
1) Now, as section 2 of the CHRA stipulates, an employer is prohibited from discriminating
against any employee on any of the 13 grounds set out under the provision.
2) In the given scenario, Barry can be said to have been undergoing a certain mental
condition that is of continuing nature forming a disability;
3) His disability in the form of mental condition has impeded his ability to carry out his
responsibilities as an installer of Easy Access Telephone Co.
4) The duty to accommodate arises when there is a change in the performance of the
employee, hence, there was a change in Barry’s behavior;
5) Barry’s loud talking that too in an agitated manner with the client who was apparently an
elderly lady signified that his mental condition impacted his behavioral conduct;
6) Suzie, Barry’s supervisor understood his behavioral change and accommodated him with
other works where he does not have to deal with customers, however, Barry did not
accept such accommodation and persisted with his behavior;

5
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Here, as per the CHRA, an employee must accommodate an employee until it causes undue
hardship to the employer in terms of health and safety. In this given scenario, Suzie
accommodated Barry to some other job where he did not have to deal with customers. However,
since he did not accept such accommodation and his behavior would cause him undue hardship
in terms of safety of the employer, his termination was justified and cannot be said to be
discrimination on the ground of disability.
Case Study 2
Issue
Whether Jim Crusty has committed discrimination against Gini
Rule
According to section 2 of the Employment Equality Act 1995, the Act purports to
achieve equality in the workplace to ensure that no person is denied of any employment
opportunities or other benefits on the ground not related to their ability but to disadvantages
experienced by aboriginals, women, visible minorities and disabled persons (Challinor 2017).
This statute is based on the notion that employment equity not only implies equal treatment to
the employees but also requires providing different form of accommodations and special
measures.
Further, under section 2 of the CHRA states that an employer must ensure that an
employee with disability must be provided with accommodation until the disability causes the
employer undue hardships in terms of safety, cost and health as was established in Mulvihill v
Ottawa (2008).

6
EMPLOYMENT LAW
In order to determine undue hardship, employers must establish the following factors:
 that accommodation was provided to the extent until undue hardship was faced by the
employer;
 the undue hardship was in terms of cost, safety, health, collective arguments, legitimate
operational requirements of the workplace, interchangeability of the facilities and
workforce;
In British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of
Human Rights) [1999] 36 C HRR D/129 (SCC) (Gismer case) and in British Columbia (Public
service Employee Relations Comm) v B.C.G.E.U [1999] 35 CHRR D/257 (Meorin case), the
Supreme Court established three essential rules or standards. The rules established that the
termination of the employee was a valid occupational requirement and not a discrimination
against the employee:
i. the standard was adopted in good faith on necessary grounds;
ii. the standard was adopted in relation to the function of the position;
iii. the standard is necessary to achieve the purpose with the view that the employer will
suffer undue hardship if individuals with such characteristics are accommodated;
In order to make a successful accommodation, it is important that the employee perform the
following:
 the employee must communicate to the employer about the need for accommodation
instead of merely assuming that the employer would have knowledge about the need;
 work with the manager to seek appropriate accommodation solutions;

7
EMPLOYMENT LAW
 provide the employer with relevant information in support of the request for
accommodation;
According to the Canadian Human Rights Act, an employer is entitled to provide
accommodation when the employee has requested for such accommodation, as the duty to
accommodate an employee is not about preferences of the employees but a duty of the employers
to avert discriminatory hindrances that prevents any employee from carrying out his or her
responsibilities (Challinor 2017).
Application
i. In the given scenario, Gini have been a teaching dance class for several years and has
been favorite dance instructor for her students;
ii. Due to her accident, she faced certain physical difficulties due to which Jim terminates as
he feels she would not be able to take dancing classes anymore;
iii. However, as was observed in Meorin and Gismer’s case, the employer must establish
three essential rules to prove that accommodating Gini would cause him undue hardship;
iv. Moreover, Jim and Gini had several meetings where she communicated about her need to
accommodate to less strenuous jobs which she used to do already before being physically
injured like booking students, collecting fees and booking rooms for dance at the dance
studio;
v. Jim did not express any concern about her good skills and performance in less strenuous
jobs and denied her any accommodation;
vi. The denial of accommodation to Gini amounts to violation of the purpose of the
Employment Equality Act 1995 that aims at ensuring equality in employment and that
employees belonging to four categories that is women, disabled persons, person with

8
EMPLOYMENT LAW
disadvantage sand visible minorities is denied of employment benefits on grounds of
disability or other disadvantages.
vii. Gini being a woman has been denied with employment opportunities based on her
disability and her ability and Jim did not consider her good work skills.
viii. Further, under Canada human Rights Act, an employer is obligated to accommodate an
employee as a means to remove the barriers that the employee faces owing to his or her
disability.
ix. Jim not only failed to exercise his duty to accommodate but also failed to record the
reasons to justify such termination.
If Gini was provided with accommodation it would not have caused any undue hardship to
Jim in terms of cost, safety and health as she was a good performer and was capable of carrying
out her other responsibilities like booking students or collecting fees equally well along with her
responsibility as a dance teacher.

9
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Reference list
Adams, E.M., 2016. Human rights at work: Physical standards for employment and human rights
law. Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism, 41(6), pp.S63-S73.
Barak, M.E.M., 2016. Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Sage
Publications.
British Columbia (Public service Employee Relations Comm) v B.C.G.E.U [1999] 35 CHRR
D/257 (Meorin case)
British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human
Rights) [1999] 36 C HRR D/129 (SCC) (Gismer case)
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General) [2015] 3 FCR 103, 2014
FCA 131.
Canadian Human Rights Act [CHRA]
Challinor, A., 2017. About the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.
Employment Equality Act 1995
Isaac, T. and King, R.J., 2016. Aboriginal Law in Canada.
Mulvihill v. Ottawa (2008), 235 O.A.C. 113 (CA)

10
EMPLOYMENT LAW