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

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

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

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

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
14h

A Nationwide Bargaining Unit to Fight Starbucks Is a Moon Shot Worth Trying

My latest on ⁦@jacobin⁩. https://jacobin.com/2022/08/starbucks-service-unions-nlrb-law-centralized-bargaining/

Reply on Twitter 1556339370461786112Retweet on Twitter 15563393704617861122Like on Twitter 155633937046178611211Twitter 1556339370461786112
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
18h

Luck is part of it for sure. Right time right place. True of a lot of jobs not just academia.

But in my experience sitting on lots of academic hiring committees, people selected have superior CVs. 60 applicants, one position. Not all luck. It’s a very competitive job market.

David Webster@dwebsterhist

I've been hired for 2 tenure track jobs and been on multiple committees, sent in more than 100 job applications, and done multiple interviews. Here is my thread 🛢
of job market advice for early career academics based on decades of experience:

1. Get lucky.

Reply on Twitter 1556285407817506817Retweet on Twitter 1556285407817506817Like on Twitter 15562854078175068171Twitter 1556285407817506817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6 Aug

Sunflowers!

Reply on Twitter 1556032894640037890Retweet on Twitter 1556032894640037890Like on Twitter 15560328946400378905Twitter 1556032894640037890
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.