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

Discrimination and Language

by David Doorey November 2, 2009
written by David Doorey November 2, 2009

I read a recent Ontario Human Rights tribunal case in which the Tribunal dismissed a complaint by a worker who had alleged discrimination when she was fired during the training process because her French was poor.  It’s called Taylor v. Oraclepoll Research.
It’s a very short decision because the employee pleaded the wrong prohibited ground.  She checked ‘disability’ on the form, and not speaking a language proficiently is not a disability within the meaning of the Code.  So the Tribunal simply ruled there was no discrimination on the basis of disability, and no other prohibited ground was named in the complaint.  So you lose.
Does this mean it is fine for an employer to dismiss or refuse to hire someone who does not speak a certain language to a level desired by the employer?
The answer is no, not always.  What the Tribunal could perhaps have done is look beyond the fact that the worker checked the wrong box on the form  and ask if there was discrimination contrary to the Code. ‘Language’ is not a prohibited ground in Ontario, but ethnic origin, place of origin, and ancestry are, and a person’s language skills are often tied to those grounds pretty directly.  So a requirement to speak French will often discriminate indirectly against people from ‘places’ where French is not spoken, or from ethnic origins where no one speaks French.  Is it discrimination on the basis of place of origin for a company to refuse employment to an Anglophone from Toronto or some other location where a language other than French is dominant?  I couldn’t find a case, but I’d think that would be a pretty strong argument.  What do you think?  The Human Rights Commission seems to suggest as much in their paper on language discrimination.
If a language requirement does indirectly discriminate, then the Code prohibits an employer from asking about it in a job application form.  The employer may ask about language skills in an interview if language is a ‘genuine and reasonable’ requirement for working in a ‘special service organization’ as identified in section 24(1)(a), or language proficiency is a bona fide occupational requirement and there it is not possible to accommodate the worker to enable them to perform the job (within the meaning of the section 11 ‘constructive dismissal’ provisions).
The key point is that the burden would usually shift to the employer to justify the language proficiency requirement once the worker had established that the requirement indirectly discriminates against them due to their ‘place or origin’, ethnicity, or ancestry.  That exploration never occurred in the Taylor case because the worker didn’t have the knowledge to plead one of these other grounds of discrimination rather than disability.
Note that in the Taylor case, the Tribunal directed the worker to places where she may get assistance in learning how to select a proper ground to plead.  She may go learn she should plead a different ground and refile the complaint.
Do you think the Tribunal should help unrepresented workers by assisting them in identifying the proper ground of discrimination to plead?  If the goal is to address discrimination in employment, do you think the Tribunal could have just saved this step and considered whether the employer’s requirement violated one of the other grounds the employee could have pleaded?

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
Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy
next post
Congrats to Marie-Helene Budworth

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.