Scenario Q Flashcards
Grand River Landscaping provides large-scale landscaping services to commercial and municipal properties in Waterloo, Ontario. The organization recently introduced a new rule that all employees working as landscapers must be able to lift at least 50 pounds because of the type of materials and equipment they must handle at job sites. Recently, 2 employees have approached Elijah, the HR manager, about their work conditions. The first, Marsha, has worked as a landscaper for the past 5 years. Marsha is unable to lift 50 pounds. She believes this new rule discriminates against those employees who are unable to lift the required weight, particularly women, although some of the men cannot comply with the rule either. The second employee, Galen, has worked for the organization for over 20 years — for the last 10 years as a team lead. Galen discloses to Elijah that he suffers from a mental illness and will need certain accommodations because of his condition, including time off. Elijah is surprised to hear this, as Galen has never shown any signs of a mental illness and has never exhibited any functional limitations. Senior management asks Elijah if it can justify the new rule requiring landscapers to be able to lift 50 pounds. What should Elijah advise? a) The rule is not discriminatory as employers have sole discretion in setting and implementing rules related to their operations that will ensure employee safety. b) The rule is not discriminatory if it is rationally connected to the function being performed, adopted in good faith, and is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose. c) The rule is not discriminatory because it does not differentiate between employees on the prohibited ground of sex, as some of the male employees also cannot meet the requirement.
The answer is b. The rule is not discriminatory if it is rationally connected to the function being performed, adopted in good faith, and is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. Employers cannot impose rules in the workplace that discriminate against certain groups. B is correct. Employers must establish that the discriminatory standard is a bona fide occupational requirement. The employee would need to show that the actions were prima facie discriminatory (that the employee has a characteristic protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC), that they experienced an adverse impact, and that the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact), but this is not the employer’s burden and this burden would be easily proven in a courtroom or human rights tribunal. C is incorrect. The fact that some men were not able to meet the requirement does not prove the new standard meets the bona fide occupational requirement test. Reference(s): Unit 9, Module 4: The Duty to Accommodate British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SCR 3
Grand River Landscaping provides large-scale landscaping services to commercial and municipal properties in Waterloo, Ontario. The organization recently introduced a new rule that all employees working as landscapers must be able to lift at least 50 pounds because of the type of materials and equipment they must handle at job sites. Recently, 2 employees have approached Elijah, the HR manager, about their work conditions. The first, Marsha, has worked as a landscaper for the past 5 years. Marsha is unable to lift 50 pounds. She believes this new rule discriminates against those employees who are unable to lift the required weight, particularly women, although some of the men cannot comply with the rule either. The second employee, Galen, has worked for the organization for over 20 years — for the last 10 years as a team lead. Galen discloses to Elijah that he suffers from a mental illness and will need certain accommodations because of his condition, including time off. Elijah is surprised to hear this, as Galen has never shown any signs of a mental illness and has never exhibited any functional limitations. Since Marsha cannot lift the required 50 pounds, she asks Elijah for an accommodation. How should Elijah respond? a) He should attempt to find Marsha alternative employment within the organization that does not require her to lift 50 pounds. b) He should offer Marsha an organization-paid membership at the local gym so she can work on improving her strength. c) He should suggest that Marsha find other employment because her job now requires her to lift 50 pounds.
The answer is a. He should attempt to find Marsha alternative employment within the organization that does not require her to lift 50 pounds. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is correct. The duty to accommodate arises if the policy change causes discrimination against the employee based on prohibited grounds. B is incorrect. This action is inappropriate and may lead to larger problems for the employer. Also, a gym membership may not guarantee that Marsha will be able to perform her job — even after going to the gym a certain number of times she may still be unable to lift the weight. Since she will effectively be unable to do her job until she has gone to the gym enough times, this action could constitute constructive dismissal. C is incorrect. This suggestion may amount to an ultimatum, which could have a negative impact on the employer. It may constitute constructive dismissal and certainly constitutes a failure to embrace the accommodation process required under the OHRC. Reference(s): Unit 9, Module 4: The Duty to Accommodate Human Rights at Work 2008, 3rd ed. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/iv-human-rights-issues-all-stages-employment/8-meeting-accommodation-needs-employees-job “Inclusive design and the duty to accommodate (fact sheet)” http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/inclusive-design-and-duty-accommodate-fact-sheet
Grand River Landscaping provides large-scale landscaping services to commercial and municipal properties in Waterloo, Ontario. The organization recently introduced a new rule that all employees working as landscapers must be able to lift at least 50 pounds because of the type of materials and equipment they must handle at job sites. Recently, 2 employees have approached Elijah, the HR manager, about their work conditions. The first, Marsha, has worked as a landscaper for the past 5 years. Marsha is unable to lift 50 pounds. She believes this new rule discriminates against those employees who are unable to lift the required weight, particularly women, although some of the men cannot comply with the rule either. The second employee, Galen, has worked for the organization for over 20 years — for the last 10 years as a team lead. Galen discloses to Elijah that he suffers from a mental illness and will need certain accommodations because of his condition, including time off. Elijah is surprised to hear this, as Galen has never shown any signs of a mental illness and has never exhibited any functional limitations. When considering Galen’s request for accommodation, what should Elijah keep in mind about Grand River’s possible obligations? a) The employer is required to accommodate evident and non-evident disabilities only if they are proven to cause functional limitations to the employee. b) The employer may be required to accommodate Galen’s non-evident disability even if it does not cause him any functional limitations. c) The employer is required to accommodate only manifestly evident disabilities.
The answer is b. The employer may be required to accommodate Galen’s non-evident disability even if it does not cause him any functional limitations. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. Non-evident disabilities do not have to cause functional limitations to require accommodation. B is correct. While some disabilities may not limit the employee’s ability to work, that does not mean the disability does not exist. C is incorrect. Both evident and non-evident disabilities must be accommodated in the workplace. Reference(s): Unit 10, Module 2: Discrimination based on Disability, Part 2 Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability (section 2.2): http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Policy%20on%20ableism%20and%20discrimination%20based%20on%20disability_accessible_2016.pdf
Grand River Landscaping provides large-scale landscaping services to commercial and municipal properties in Waterloo, Ontario. The organization recently introduced a new rule that all employees working as landscapers must be able to lift at least 50 pounds because of the type of materials and equipment they must handle at job sites. Recently, 2 employees have approached Elijah, the HR manager, about their work conditions. The first, Marsha, has worked as a landscaper for the past 5 years. Marsha is unable to lift 50 pounds. She believes this new rule discriminates against those employees who are unable to lift the required weight, particularly women, although some of the men cannot comply with the rule either. The second employee, Galen, has worked for the organization for over 20 years — for the last 10 years as a team lead. Galen discloses to Elijah that he suffers from a mental illness and will need certain accommodations because of his condition, including time off. Elijah is surprised to hear this, as Galen has never shown any signs of a mental illness and has never exhibited any functional limitations. Elijah considers the Supreme Court of Canada’s stance on incorporating the subjective component of a disability. What position has the Supreme Court taken on this issue? a) Employers are not always expected to provide accommodation for non-evident disabilities because they are undetectable and unverifiable. b) Employers are required to accommodate only medically identified disabilities because the subjective component would make accommodation too complex and difficult to implement. c) Employers must interpret a disability to include its subjective component so that a proper discrimination analysis can be conducted.
The answer is c. Employers must interpret a disability to include its subjective component so that a proper discrimination analysis can be conducted. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. The subjective component must always be considered. B is incorrect. Excluding the subjective component allows for discrimination against persons suffering disabilities. C is correct. Discrimination can be based on stereotypes and perceptions, thus it is important that the subjective component be considered. Evidence of actual subjective belief on the part of the employer and its employees is a factor used to determine whether a person is disabled and owed an accommodation. Reference(s): Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montréal (City); Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Boisbriand (City), 2000 SCC 27 Unit 10, Module 2: Discrimination based on Disability, Part 2 http://www.ohrc.on.ca/ur/book/export/html/2871
Grand River Landscaping provides large-scale landscaping services to commercial and municipal properties in Waterloo, Ontario. The organization recently introduced a new rule that all employees working as landscapers must be able to lift at least 50 pounds because of the type of materials and equipment they must handle at job sites. Recently, 2 employees have approached Elijah, the HR manager, about their work conditions. The first, Marsha, has worked as a landscaper for the past 5 years. Marsha is unable to lift 50 pounds. She believes this new rule discriminates against those employees who are unable to lift the required weight, particularly women, although some of the men cannot comply with the rule either. The second employee, Galen, has worked for the organization for over 20 years — for the last 10 years as a team lead. Galen discloses to Elijah that he suffers from a mental illness and will need certain accommodations because of his condition, including time off. Elijah is surprised to hear this, as Galen has never shown any signs of a mental illness and has never exhibited any functional limitations. Senior management at Grand River decides to refuse Galen’s request for accommodation. How should Elijah respond to this decision? a) He should suggest that Grand River make an effort to accommodate Galen by using forms of accommodation the organization has used in the past. b) He should suggest that Grand River request supporting medical documentation from Galen to assess whether an accommodation is required and what would be appropriate. c) He should support Grand River’s refusal to accommodate Galen because granting the accommodation would only encourage other employees to make their own requests.
The answer is b. He should suggest that Grand River request supporting medical documentation from Galen to assess whether an accommodation is required and what would be appropriate. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. Although the employer should accommodate Galen’s disability, the employer neither has sufficient information to implement the appropriate accommodations, nor is it advisable that the employer use past forms of accommodation to accommodate Galen. Accommodations must be made individually, tailored to the specific needs of the employee. B is correct. If a disability is supported by medical documentation, the employer is obligated to fulfill the request for accommodation to the point of undue hardship. C is incorrect. The employer is obligated by law to accommodate all forms of disability regardless of whether the action may incite other employees to seek accommodations. Reference(s): Unit 10, Module 2: Discrimination based on Disability, Part 2 British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SCR 3
