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

Discriminating Employer Pays a Decade Later: Reinstated, Decade of Back Wages Ordered

by David Doorey March 20, 2013
written by David Doorey March 20, 2013

Last winter, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal issued a decision finding that an employer School Board had violated the Code by failing to accommodate an employee with a disability.  The case was called Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.  The case was unremarkable from a legal perspective, although it was notable that the discrimination had taken place nearly a decade earlier.
This week, the Tribunal issued its remedial order.  Here it is. This decision is a bit of a surprise, given the magnitude of the award, though that is a function of the long period of time it took to litigate the matter, rather than any shocking application of remedial principles.
See what you think.
Facts
HR-tribunal3The Employee (F) filed her complaint in 2004.  She alleged that the employer had discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate her and then dismisses her in July 2004.  F suffered from an anxiety disorder that was exasperated by her job, which potentially exposed her to personal liability under health and safety legislation relating to the treatment of asbestos.  Her doctor said she could work in a job not related to health and safety, and that did not expose her to this liability.
On a number of occasions, the employer refused to provide the employee with reasonable information necessary for the accommodation process, such as a list of the ‘essential duties’ of jobs.  The employer stalled  and refused to meet the employee and other representatives who wanted to explore accommodation possibilities.  The employer attempted to influence the expert preparing a report on the employee’s restrictions by badmouthing the employee.
Decision
The Tribunal found that the employer did not exhaust its efforts to find a suitable alternative or accommodated job.  There was available positions that were suitable for accommodation that the employer did not consider or test.  However, rather than place her in one of these accommodated jobs, the employer fired her.
The Remedy
The Tribunal was guided by the golden rule of remedies, which is to put the aggrieved party back into the position they would have been in but for the illegal conduct.
Reinstatement:  Nearly 9 years have passed since the dismissal.  During that time, the employee has found jobs, but none as good as the one she had or would have had if she had been accommodated.  The employee had requested reinstatement in the application, and she still wanted that.  The employer objected, arguing that it would be unfair to order reinstatement after 9 years:

The [employer] submitted that it would be unfair to order reinstatement in light of the length of time which has passed.  The applicant’s employment was terminated in July 2004; it is now 2013, approximately eightand a half years later.  The delay cannot be attributed to the applicant.  She filed a human rights complaint in November 2004, four months after her employment was terminated. The complaint had not been dealt with by the Commission by 2008, and therefore the applicant applied to this Tribunal in May 2009. …The delay in processing the application since May 2009 has not been unreasonable, in light of the complexity of the issues.

The Tribunal orders the employee reinstated to a job she can perform at the level she was at when she was fired, with lost seniority and whatever benefits she would have earned over the 9 years.  The proper analogy was a labour arbitration in a unionized workplace, where reinstatement is the usual order when a termination is found to have been improper.
Training:  Since the employee’s skills will have fallen behind during the almost 9 years since her dismissal, the employer was ordered to provide up to 6 months training to prepare her for whatever job they find for her within the acceptable range of jobs
Lost Wages: The employee here lost wages from June 2003 (the date an acceptable accommodated job became available)  to the the date of her reinstatement in 2013.  In this case, that amounted to over $400,ooo in lost wages.   The employee submitted detailed records of her job searches over the year, so there was no failure to mitigate.
Lost Benefits and Pension Contributions:  The employer was ordered to make the employee whole for all contributions to pensions and benefits that she did not receive, but would have received has she been employed throughout.
Tax Implications:  On the theory that the employee would have paid less tax had she received her wages on a regular basis rather than as a one time giant sum, the employer was ordered to calculate and reimburse the employee for any extra taxes paid.
Injury to Dignity, Feelings, and Self-Respect:  This is a common head of damage in human rights cases.  The Tribunal orders an additional $30,000.
Questions for Discussion

The remedy is very costly to the employer due to the length of time it took to litigate the case and get a decision.  Do you think it is unfair to the employer that the size of the remedy is linked to the capacity of the Tribunal to complete hearings?

The employer was aware throughout the extended period that reinstatement and back wages could be ordered if a violation of the Code was found.  It could have offered to reinstate the employee at any time.  Does this influence how you feel about Question 1?

Do you think reinstatement is an appropriate remedy when a decade has passed?

Courts do not order reinstatement when nonunion employees are wrongfully dismissed.  One reason why is that courts said it was impractical to order contracting parties to continue a contract after trust and confidence has been lost.  Why do you think that human rights tribunals and labour arbitrators (in unionized settings) regularly reinstate employees who were unlawfully dismissed?

8 comments
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
Mitigating Wrongful Dismissal Damages After Evans v. Teamsters
next post
Are Ontario Laws on Union Dues and Membership 'Undemocratic'?

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 ·
9h

Interested in your comment that you don’t have rules. I’d think that submitting an essay written by a machine without citing the machine is just straight up plagiarism.

My view is that any text not written by yourself needs to be fully cited.

Andres Guadamuz @technollama

@shahaoul @glynmoody Indeed. As we don't have rules, we can only mark what's in front of us. I can imagine some students using it judiciously, to get a technical definition for example, but in other cases the result can be an incoherent unstructured essay. So we mark it as that.

Reply on Twitter 1619691956413808640 Retweet on Twitter 1619691956413808640 2 Like on Twitter 1619691956413808640 23 Twitter 1619691956413808640
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
18h

McDonald's president who made $7.4 million last year says proposal to pay fast-food workers $22 an hour is 'costly and job-destroying' https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/mcdonalds-president-who-made-dollar74-million-last-year-says-proposal-to-pay-fast-food-workers-dollar22-an-hour-is-costly-and-job-destroying/ar-AA16Mc7D?ocid=a2hs&li=BBnb7Kz

Reply on Twitter 1619548631421562880 Retweet on Twitter 1619548631421562880 17 Like on Twitter 1619548631421562880 47 Twitter 1619548631421562880
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
19h

Google axes thousands of jobs while rolling in cash on orders from Wall Street pencil pushers. Pretty obvious where public anger should be directed.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2023/01/28/dont-do-evil-massive-layoffs-at-google-shine-a-light-on-tech-giants-ugly-side.html

Reply on Twitter 1619544883609407488 Retweet on Twitter 1619544883609407488 7 Like on Twitter 1619544883609407488 9 Twitter 1619544883609407488
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
  • 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.