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

COACH: Another Human Rights Violator

by David Doorey November 20, 2008
written by David Doorey November 20, 2008

A student of mine gave me a job application form from a company called Coach, an American company wit stores in Toronto and some other Canadian cities.  It apparently sells purses, shoes, and various accessories.  Like our good friends at Starbucks, Coach is not very knowledgeable of Canadian human rights laws as they apply to the recruitment process.  Like Starbucks, Coach claims to be an ‘equal opportunity’ employer that hires “without regard to race, sex, national origin, color, age, disability, veteran status, pregnancy, sexual orientation, religion or any other basis prohibited by applicable law”.
So, let’s play my favorite game:  Find the illegal questions and requirements:
1.  Have you been convicted of a felony crime or theft-related misdemeanor in the last 5 years?  If yes, give details.

Strike One:   It is unlawful to ask whether someone has been convicted of a crime, unless you a lso add “for which a pardon has not been granted”.  That’s because the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of ‘record of offense’ if the person has received a pardon.
2.  Provide your social insurance number.
Strike Two:   This could disclose national origin or citizenship.
3.  Provide the name and address of your high school.
Strike Three:  For the same reasons I described in my Starbucks posting, an employer cannot ask applicants where they went to high school.   It tends to disclose national origin.  
4.   You agree that Coach can conduct personal interviews with “friends, neighbours, schools, landlords, financial institutions, friends about your ‘character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living”
Are you kidding me!  This is a job working as a retail clerk, right?  Beyond the general offensiveness of an employer dispatching managers to interrogate friends and neighbours about the ‘general character’ of applicants, what do you think they mean by ‘mode of living’?  What if this snooping leads the employer to learn that the applicant is living with someone of the same sex, for example, or is married (or not married), or has children (or doesn’t).   Sending someone to ask neighbours  questions that the employer could not ask the applicant personally does not avoid the Human Rights Code.  
Of course, what is happening in this Coach application form is that the company is simply using its American forms for Canadian recruitment.  This shows an extreme lack of respect for the laws of the host country, and for all applicants who might be asked to complete this illegal form.
Finally, the Coach application form also grants Coach the right to complete extensive credit searches of applicants.   Do you think employers should be permitted to do this?   Check out this useful discussion of employee privacy issues by the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.
Please send me any other illegal application forms you come across.  

5 comments
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
Fraser v. Ontario: Court Finds Ontario Violated Charter Right to Collective Bargaining
next post
Confusion at York as Some Classes Resume

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 219 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.