The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Could the Toronto Maple Leafs Announce They Will Only Hire an Anglophone Coach?

by David Doorey December 27, 2011
written by David Doorey December 27, 2011

In anticipation of next term’s Employment Law course, here’s a fun question that’s been in news over the holidays that I leave you with. If you have thoughts, send them along through the comment feature.
The Montreal Canadiens recently fired their coach and replaced him with a guy (Cunneyworth) who does not speak any French. This caused a huge uproar in Quebec, causing the owner of the team to hold a press conference and announce that Cunneyworth is in fact only an “interim” coach, and that a real job search would be done. In choosing the new coach, according to the owner, the “ability of the head coach to express himself in both French and English” would be a “very important factor”.  In other words, we will give preference to a Francophone because the fans want that.  In fact, they insist.  The Quebec media has gone further, and is claiming that what the organization is really saying is that they will give preference to Francophones (being able to speak some French isn’t enough).
Is that lawful? Well, maybe.  Any Quebec lawyers want to chime in on how Quebec human rights laws would deal with this?  What if the Canadiens fire Cunneyworth to replace him with a Francophone–which may indeed happen. Would the Canadiens be unlawfully discriminating against him?
For my students, let’s flip it around.  Assume the Toronto Maple Leafs said they would only hire an Anglophone as coach, because the Toronto fan base would not tolerate a Francophone coaching the Leafs. Would that violate the Ontario Human Rights Code?
As always, you begin with the list of prohibited grounds in section 5:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability

Is a requirement to speak English or to be from English-speaking Canada caught by any of these grounds?  What if the rule effectively eliminates candidates from French-speaking Quebec (as the Canadians’ preference for Francophones would tend to eliminate most people who come from English Canada?  [I did a post on this a couple of years ago, but I haven’t yet updated my case search]
Now, assuming that giving preference to English-speaking coaches is caught by a prohibited ground, is there any defense or exception available that would permit the Leafs to hire only coaches who are English speaking or Anglophones?
Do any of the exceptions in Section 24 apply?  Section 24(1)(b) provides some exceptions in the case of direct discrimination, but that only applies to sex, marital status, age, and record of offence, so that wouldn’t apply.  How about Section 24(1)(a)?  That doesn’t seem to apply either, since the Leafs are a for profit entertainment company, not an educational, religious, or social institution. None of the other parts of Section 24 seem to apply either.
How about section 11? That is the indirect or ”constructive”  discrimination section. Would a rule saying you must be Anglophone or English speaking to get this job be covered by this section?  Constructive discrimination occurs when a rule is neutral on its face–treats everyone the same–but has an adverse impact on some people on the basis of a prohibited ground. I guess you could argue that the Leafs are saying English is a requirement of the job, and this has an adverse impact on French-speaking people.
So look what Section 11 says.  It says that a rule that has an adverse impact on French-speaking candidates is not illegal if speaking English is:

a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances

So, the Leafs would need to argue that being able to speak English is necessary to be the coach of the Leafs, just as the Canadians seem to believe that French is necessary to coach the Canadians.  Though, clearly it isn’t, since their coach right now doesn’t speak a word of French.  In fact, there are lots of players in the NHL who don’t speak English or French, at least when they first get here from Russia, Sweden, et cetera.  Presumably, the coaches work around that by having translators.  NHL teams can afford translators.
Ah, translators.  That brings me to the next part of Section 11, part (2), which says this:

The Tribunal… shall not find that a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied that the needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any.

Would it cause the Toronto Maple Leafs undue hardship to provide a translator for a Francophone coach, so his words can be understood by non-French speaking media, fans, and players?
What do you think?  Ponder that as you sip your champagne.  Salutations, and see you in 2012!

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Happy Holidays. Rest in Peace, Clarence.
next post
Workplace Law Blog Takes Home Another Clawbie. Thanks Everyone!

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 4 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.