Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Asking a Job Applicant "Where are you from?" is Violation of Human Rights Code

by David Doorey December 4, 2012
written by David Doorey December 4, 2012

Section 23 of the Ontario Human Rights Code is an interesting section.  It regulates what an employer can (and can’t ) ask job applicants.  I have had several disagreements with commentators on this blog over the years when I have explained my view of this section.  While I’ve argued that the mere asking of an improper question is a violation of Section 5 (via section 23), others have argued that an improper question is alright, provided the employer did not intend to discriminate and does not rely on information obtained through an improper question in their hiring decisions.
A decision issued today by the Tribunal comes down on my side of the debate.  See what you think.  The case is called Yildiz  and MAG Lighting.
Facts
The applicant (Y) was told to report to a job site for a tryout to fill a vacancy as an electrician.  At another site, the employer was giving another applicant a tryout as well.  The other applicant was offered the full-time job, and Y filed a complaint alleging that he did not get the job because of his ethnicity or place of origin, contrary to Section 5 of the Code.  During the tryout period, a manager of the employer asked Y where he was from, meaning what part of Turkey.  Both men were Turkish.  Y said he was from a city in central Turkey, to which the manager responded with some suspicion because of either how Y looked or sounded.  Y has chosen the city as his answer, because it is a place that has a mix of Kurdish and ethnic Turkish residents. Y argued that the manager believed he was from a Kurdish part of Turkey, which was why he was denied the job.
The Tribunal’s Decision
Y loses the argument that he was denied the job because of his ethnicity.  The Tribunal ruled that he was not given the job because the other candidate was found to be more suitable for the position.  The supervisor who made the decision was not the same manager who had asked Y where he lived, and the Tribunal accepts the explanation that the hiring decision was skills related, and not based on prohibited grounds.
However, the Tribunal does find that a breach of Section 23 occurred when Y was asked where he was from.  The reasoning is instructive.  Firstly, look at Section 23(2):

Application for Employment. The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where a form of application for employment is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The employer made three arguments in its defence.  Firstly, it argued that section 23(2) does not apply, since the question was not ‘an oral inquiry made of an applicant’.  The Tribunal dismissed the argument, and I don’t even understand it.  Since the employee was in a job tryout when he was asked where he’s from, he must have been an ‘applicant’.
Secondly, the employer argued that ‘where are you from’ does not ‘directly or indirectly classify or indicate qualifications by a prohibited ground’.  The Tribunal disagreed.  The Adjudicator said, “I cannot think of a clearer question that would elicit the applicant’s place of origin than ‘where are you from’.  By directly soliciting information with respect to the applicant’s place of origin, the respondent made an oral inquiry that had the effect of classifying the applicant on the basis of a prohibited ground.”
The Tribunal’s response to the employer’s third argument is the most interesting.  The Employer argued that even if the question did classify the qualifications by a prohibited ground, it is still not a violation of Section 23 if the employer can provide a ‘non-discriminatory explanation’ for asking the question.  The employer argued that the  question was just by way of following Turkish social norms by asking what part of Turkey people are from, and that no improper purpose was intended, and no improper use of the information obtained was deployed.  This is a common refrain by employers who ask applicant questions like, “Do you have any children?”, or “What does your husband do?”.   An employer might say, we were just being friendly and engaging in normal social chit-chat; we had not improper motive and we didn’t rely on the answers in any way.
However, the Tribunal ruled that Section 23 is violated by the mere asking of an improper question, regardless of the motive or use of the information obtained. It rejected any Tribunal decisions that might suggest otherwise.  Section 23, like all other Code sections, must be given a broad and purposive reading.  On its face, Section 23(2) says the making of an improper inquiry “infringes” Section 5.  Period.  Moreover, as I have been arguing for some time, the Tribunal says that Section 23 must introduce something new that is not already prohibited by the general ban on employment discrimination in Section 5:

It is difficult to discern why the legislature would enact directory provisions under section 23 in relation to specific types of conduct, which would otherwise potentially be captured under the general provisions of section 5, unless it was intended that the conduct in section 23 be treated uniquely.

If an employer relies on information about an applicant’s place of origin, then that would be a violation of Section 5 even if Section 23 wasn’t there. That tells us, as the Tribunal correctly finds in this case, that Section 23 is intended to stop employers from asking improper questions in the first place, so that employees do not feel they are being improperly categorized, and also to reduce the temptation for employers to allow improper information obtained in the answers to taint their decisions, intentionally or subconsciously.
Remedy
What’s the remedy for an improper question during the interview stage, when the information obtained is not used improperly in a hiring decision?
Here, the Tribunal finds it is appropriate to order monetary damages for harm to dignity, self-respect, and hurt feelings.  In this case, the Tribunal assesses that amount at $1500, plus interest.

Questions for Discussion
Do you agree with the Tribunal’s approach to Section 23 in this case?
Or, do you think that the Tribunal should only find that a question violates Section 23 of the Code if the employer’s intention was to obtain information about prohibited grounds?
 

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
NHL Owners and Players to Meet Without Chief Negotiators. Good Idea?
next post
Employers Can't Ask an Applicant's Age, and Volunteer Work is 'Employment" under Human Rights Code

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.