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

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?

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

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

Off to Vancouver folks. Please be sunny.

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

Speaking of middle aged guys who talk about Labour Law, I’m returning to my old stopping grounds in beautiful Vancouver later this month!

Thanks to @AllardLaw & @SFU_LBST for the invitation.

Hope to see you there, or join on-line:

https://www.sfu.ca/labour/community/news-events/news-2023/mapping-the-future-of-canadian-labour-law-lecture-by-dr--david-d.html

Reply on Twitter 1638176313533157377 Retweet on Twitter 1638176313533157377 Like on Twitter 1638176313533157377 3 Twitter 1638176313533157377
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
14h

Pitching @Uber as a ‘green’ company is some next level shit.

Uber Canada @Uber_Canada

UberX Share provides a greener way to get from A to B, by moving more people with fewer cars. Now available in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.

Reply on Twitter 1637978201598185472 Retweet on Twitter 1637978201598185472 7 Like on Twitter 1637978201598185472 33 Twitter 1637978201598185472
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
17h

For me, this simple little case brings into focus the most important issues for future of Canadian labour law.

What does it mean to say workers have freedom to associate when they can be fired for associating?

Should law protect nonunion workers’ right to strike? How so? …

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

Was reading a decision again in which a group of daycare workers selected a spokesperson to raise employment related concerns with boss.

She was fired.

Workers struck in solidarity. They too were fired.

Did you know that no Canadian law protects these workers from dismissal?

Reply on Twitter 1637939578446258179 Retweet on Twitter 1637939578446258179 4 Like on Twitter 1637939578446258179 38 Twitter 1637939578446258179
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.