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 at Work Based on "Perceived" Disability

by David Doorey September 28, 2011
written by David Doorey September 28, 2011

My students, including some practicing HR professionals, are often surprised to learn that the Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of “perceived disability” in addition to actual disability.  In other words, if a worker is denied employed or otherwise disadvantaged at work because the employer perceives them to be disabled, even though they are not, the Human Rights Code may still have been violated.
In Ontario, Section 10(3) of the Human Rights Code expressly prohibits perceived disability when it says that it is unlawful to deny employment because the person is “believed to have or to have had a disability”.  The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that the “disability” must be read in include the perception of disability.  See Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montréal (City).  In that case, a job applicant was denied employment because the employer perceived her to have a back disability.
Perceived Drug Addicition
We look at a case in my Employment Law course called Weyenhaeuser Co. v. OHRC in  which a job applicant failed a drug test, which indicated he had consumed marijuana.  When asked if he smoked marijuana, the employee first denied he did, but then said he was a “casual user”.  He was denied the job, and he filed a Human Rights Code complaint alleging he’d been denied employment because the employer “perceived” him to be addicted to marijuana (and therefore disabled).  He lost, because the Tribunal found he had told the employer he was only a casual user, and there was no evidence to suggest the employer thought otherwise.  If he has told the employer he smoked marijuana daily, would the outcome have been different?
Perceived Weight Disability
Thanks to Dan Lublin for making me aware of a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision from last year in which discrimination on the basis of perceived disability was found.  The case is called Johnson v. D. and B. Traffic Control. The worker in this case was overweight, but his weight was not a disability.  The Tribunal wrote:

simply being overweight is not sufficient to constitute a disability for the purposes of the Code. There must be some limitation on the ability to perform the activities of daily living or work in order to constitute a disability. While I accept that obesity may, dependent on the circumstances, constitute a disability, based on the evidence presented in this case, I am not persuaded that Mr. Johnson has an actual disability

However, when he was denied a job assignment, the employer told him it was due to “his disability”.  The employer later recanted that explanation and explained that it was really due to the customer asking that the Johnson not be assigned to their jobs.   The Tribunal found that “regardless of the reason, specifically advising Mr. Johnson that he was not offered work because of “his disability” was a contravention of the Code”. Johnson was awarded $2000 for hurt feelings, dignity and self-respect.

Here’s two questions to consider.
1.  Is it a violation of human rights codes for an employer to refuse to employ someone based on a perception (perhaps incorrect) of the applicant’s religion, marital status, or ethnic origin?  Or is it only discrimination based on perceived “disability” that is prohibited?
2.  In the Johnson case, a customer of the employer asks that Johnson not be assigned to their job.   What if that customer didn’t want Johnson because of “his perceived disability”, or because of his religion.  Is Johnson’s employer violating the Human Rights Code by accepting a clients’ discriminatory preferences?  If so, how should employers respond to discriminatory requests from customers?

1 comment
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
NFL player files Complaint Against Players Union
next post
Is the Strike Dead?

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 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
7h

@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 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
7h

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·
9h

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.