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

A Discussion of Discrimination in Job Ads

by David Doorey November 16, 2012
written by David Doorey November 16, 2012

I wrote the other day that listing a requirement to speak Mandarin in a job ad for positions at a coal mine would violate Section 23 of the Ontario Human Rights Code if that Code applied to the ad.  I then asked whether that was the case in other provinces, since I don’t have time to do a cross-country search.   However, one commentor called me on my assertion that the ad would violate the Ontario Code.  He says that it is perfectly lawful for an employer to include a job requirement to speak Mandarin in the ad.
The inclusion of a requirement to speak Mandarin in an ad for coal miners provides us with a great case study to look at how the Code regulates job ads, a topic we cover in our Employment Law class.  Can an Ontario employer post a job ad that specifies that speaking Mandarin is a job requirement?   See what you think. 
I’ll make the argument that the Code prohibits this.  You can then make the case for the other side of the argument if you believe my argument is faulty.  I think Section 23(1) is one of the most misunderstood sections of the Code, in part because few people ever file complaints against job ads, so few people spend much time thinking carefully about this part of the law. 
Why a Job Ad Requiring Mandarin for a Coal Miner Violates the Ontario Human Rights Code
Begin with the applicable section of the Code that regulates job ads.  It is Section 23(1):

23.  (1)  The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where an invitation to apply for employment or an advertisement in connection with employment is published or displayed that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.

What is that section intended to do?  We can discover the answer by working through a series of questions.
Question 1:  Could a coal mine refuse to hire a coal miner who can’t speak Mandarin? 

The answer is, maybe.  Why?  First, we need to decide whether requiring workers to speak Mandarin indirectly discriminates against applicants on the basis of either ethnic origin, race, ancestry, or place of origin.  “Language” is not a prohibited ground, but language can be a proxy for those other prohibited grounds.  It’s easy to see how. The class of persons who are not born in Mandarin speaking regions or whose ethnicity, ancestry, or race has no relationship to Mandarin will be far less likely to be able to satisfy the requirement to speak Mandarin than applicants whose self is linked in some way to cultures where Mandarin is spoken.  A requirement to speak Mandarin indirectly discriminates against non-Mandarin speaking applicants in the same way that a requirement to lift 50 pound boxes or run fast discriminates indirectly against applicants in wheelchairs due to a disability. [And, for the same reasons that follow, it is unlawful to include a requirement to lift 50 pounds or run fast in a job ad as well].  Including a requirement to speak Mandarin ensures a sample pool consisting mostly–though not exclusively–of applicants from Chinese or Taiwanese descent, thereby granting a preference for that applicant pool. 

If we can agree that a job requirement to speak Mandarin indirectly discriminates on a prohibited ground, does that mean the requirement is a breach of the Code?  The answer is, not necessarily.  Section 11 (constructive discrimination) deals with this issue.   It says that a job requirement that indirectly discriminates is NOT a breach of the Code if speaking Mandarin is a ‘reasonable and bona fide job requirement in the circumstances”.  So, if being able to speak Mandarin is really essential to being a coal miner in Canada, then this is where the employer gets its chance to prove that and avoid liability under the Code.

BUT, and this is a CRUCIAL BUT, the only way that the employer can avoid that liability is if it can prove that there is no way to accommodate the non-speaking Mandarin coal miner, short of undue hardship, that would enable him to work as a miner.  That requirement appears in Section 11(2).  This introduces a mandatory process of assessment that requires a dialogue between employer and worker.  This dialogue should consider the duties of the job, the worker’s capacity to work safely without speaking Mandarin, why Mandarin is required, the ability of the employer to hire intepretors or supervisors who could translate, the potential for coworkers who do speak Mandarin to assist those who do not, the level of language skills of the individual applicant, and other factors.  Working through this accommodation process is one of the most important features the Code introduced into Ontario employment law.

So a coal mine employer MIGHT be able to refuse employment to non-Mandarin speaking applicants, but not before  it  first exhausts all efforts to find accommodation, up to the point of undue hardship. 

Question 2:  Would including a requirement in a job ad that applicants MUST speak Mandarin discourage non-Mandarin speaking applicants from applying?

Of course it would.  If you think you can’t meet the requirements for the job, you probably won’t bother applying.  Why would you?  Assume that 100 miners don’t apply for the job because they don’t speak Mandarin.  The employer will have successfully weeded out all of those applicants simply by including the Mandarin requirement in the ad.  However, did the employer have a legal right to refuse to consider those applicants due to their inability to speak Mandarin?  No, it did not.  As we just explained, the employer could only refuse to hire the non-Mandarin speaking applicants if it can prove that it’s impossible to accommodate their language deficiency without undue hardship.  Trouble is, the employer completely bypassed the legal obligation to consider accommodation of the non-Mandarin speaking applicants, because none of them applied.   This would be a great way for employers to avoid having to consider accommodation if the Code permitted it:  just include a requirement in your job ad that you know will discourage certain segments of the population from applying, so that you don’t have to accommodate them.

Question 3:  Is it lawful to include a requirement that indirectly discriminates in a job ad?

This brings us back to the main question.   If it is unlawful to refuse employment to a non-Mandarin speaking applicant until the accommodation process has been exhausted, then surely it must be unlawful to include requirements in a job ad that would discourage non-Mandarin speaking applicants from applying in the first place.  That is precisely what Section 23(1) is there to deal with.  It adds an important component to the statutory model.  The idea is that any disqualification of applicants related to human rights reasons (direct or indirect) should occur at the interview stage or thereafter, and not at the initial stage of the job posting. That’s why Section 23(3), which regulates job interviews, allows employers to ask questions that touch on prohibited grounds.  At that stage, a discussion about possible accomodation must take place.  If people don’t even apply, then that fundemantel accommodation discussion never occurs.  Section 23(1) is there to protect the accommodation process, to ensure that it is not bypassed by means of a job ad that discourages protected classes of workers from submitting their applications.

So, to conclude my submissions, if an employer would be required to accommodate an applicant’s inability to satisfy a job requirement (under section 11), then the employer cannot include that requirement in its job ads.  That is what Section 23(1) says, in plain English.   That’s why a requirement to speak Mandarin in a job ad for an Ontario coal mine would violate the Code.

Do you see any problems with this analysis?  What is the counter argument?

If Section 23(1) does not do what I argued, then what exactly is its purpose?  What new type of behavior does it regulate that is not already covered by the general prohibition in Section 5 on discrimination in employment? 

If the argument above is correct, and posting a job ad requiring Mandarin is a violation of Section 23(1), then is it also a violation of the same section to include knowledge of French or English as a requirement in a job ad?  Why or why not?

4 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
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the Neoliberal
next post
Can a Bar Give Preference to Women in Server Positions?

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.