Duty to Accommodate
Seminar paper discussing an employer's role when addressing mental illness and addiction in the workplace; impact of changes to Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act; procedural duty, disclosure, accommodation.
Provides guide and overview of discrimination and accommodations for persons with epilepsy in the workplace, among other daily life advices; addressing legal issues faced by persons with epilepsy.
Author covers the procedural expectation of employers in the accommodation process and suggests case law examples (such as Lane v ADGA Group Consultants Inc 2008, or Steward v Ontario Government Services 2013) of where the duty to inquire was explored.
The author reviews the inconsistent interpretation between jurisdictions of the procedural duty to accommodate and argues that the application in Ontario is a miss-interpretation of the law and leads to distorted results.
A look at Section 13 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code through the Rsh v BC HRTO case, covering the employer's duty to accommodate. Union involvement from the Richmond Firefighters Association represented bagining unit employees in the City of Richmond's Fire Department.
Review of BC Human Rights Tribunal decision in Mackenzie v Jace Holdings, 2012. Tribunal found that employer failed to fulfill procedural duty to inquire whether accommodation was needed for employee's mental health, thus, discriminating against her.
Article filters through human rights disclosure rulings in Canada; concern with levels of confidentiality awarded to persons with disabilities when providing disclosure of medical information.
Summary of the Hydro-Quebéc case. The goal of accommodation is to ensure employee who is capable of working can without undue hardship to the employer. The employer is not obliged to change the conditions of work in a fundamental way. Where the employee has had extensive absenteeism and is unlikely that the employee can not return to work without continued absentee issues constitutes undue hardship.
Author describes the reluctance of many employees to disclose thier mental health diagnoses due to workplace stigmatization; examines whether currently prescribed by Canadian law affords proper accommodation to such individuals; outlines the need for a seperation between institutional inclusion and social inclusion within the process.
Reiterates that standards in the workplace should be as inclusive as possible, and that litigation in cases such as Meorin and Grismer could help to seriously advance substantive equality for those with disabilities.