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

Is 51 Too Old To Be Hired as a Police Officer?

by David Doorey September 20, 2016
written by David Doorey September 20, 2016

A 51 year old woman has filed a human rights complaint alleging age discrimination after she was unsuccessful in a job competition to become a police officer, the Toronto Star reports.
This is an interesting one.  My employment law students should be able to work through the legal argument.   As I explain in Chapter 26 of The Law of Work, human rights cases involve a two-step analysis, as depicted in the box below.

From D. Doorey, The Law of Work

From D. Doorey, The Law of Work (Emond, 2016)


In this case, the woman’s claim is that she was on track to getting a police job, but then an employer rep asked her age and the answer put an end to her dream of being a police officer. She is definitely alleging discrimination on the basis of prohibited ground (age) in Section 5 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.    She will need to persuade the Tribunal that the employer was influenced to deny her a job based on her age.   In that regard, the evidence that the employer asked her age will be important.
Can an employer ask a job applicant’s age?
That inquiry (how old are you?) brings into a play a special part of the Code that deals with job interview questions.   Read section 24(2) and (3):

(2) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where a form of application for employment is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) precludes the asking of questions at a personal employment interview concerning a prohibited ground of discrimination where discrimination on such ground is permitted under this Act. 

Section 24(2) prohibits an employer from making inquiries in a job interview that illicit

Can Police Refuse to Hire an Applicant in their 50's?

Can Police Refuse to Hire an Applicant in their 50’s?


information about prohibited grounds.  An employer can’t ask an applicant about their religion, race, sexual orientation, marital status, place of origin, or about any other prohibited ground, including their age.  The legal assumption is that the answers to these questions are irrelevant, of a personal nature, and frankly none of the employer’s business.
So when an employer asked an applicant “where are you from” and “are you white”, the Tribunal ruled there had been a violation of section 23(2).  And when an employer asked an applicant if she had ever received psychiatric care, it violated Section 23, since the question classifies applicants as disabled or not disabled.  Similarly, asking an applicant their age classifies the applicants by age and indicates that age is a relevant job criteria (see e.g. Johnson v. Ontario)

If the employer did ask “how old are you?”, then it may have violated Section 24(2).   Two points are worth noting in that regard.  Firstly, the fact that an employer asked an illegal question does not necessarily mean that the employer unlawfully denied employment in violation of the Code.  The hiring decision is treated as a distinct matter from the unlawful question.  In other words, an employer can ask an illegal question but then not be influenced by the answer.  The employer here could concede that its representative should not have asked the applicant her age but still argue that age was not a factor in the hiring decision.  However, the fact that the question was asked is an important part of the evidentiary record and raises the suspicious that the employer believed age was a relevant factor.
Secondly, there is an exception in Section 24(3) that permits employers in some circumstances to ask about prohibited grounds.   That section provides that it is not unlawful to ask about a prohibited ground if “discrimination on such ground is permitted” by the Code.  What does that mean?
Is Age a Reasonable and Bona Fide Qualification of Being a Police Officer?
To answer this question we need to turn our attention to Question Two in our two step analysis.   The Code includes a number of exemptions or defences for employers, situations in which actions that otherwise would constitute discrimination on a prohibited grounds are nevertheless permitted.   One of them is found in Section 24(1)(b) and 24(2):

24. (1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where,

(b) the discrimination in employment is for reasons of age…  if the age …  of the applicant is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment; …

(2) No tribunal or court shall find that a qualification under clause (1) (b) is reasonable and bona fide unless it is satisfied that the circumstances of the person cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those circumstances considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any.

Now the plot thickens.   The employer may argue that it was permitted to ask about age because Section 24 permits it to discriminate on the basis of age.  Alternatively, it may argue that age was not a factor in the hiring decision, but in the alternative, even if it was, “age” is a reasonable and bona fide qualification of being a police officer.  The employer would need to argue that, because of the nature of police work, it is reasonable and bona fide to refuse employment to applicants over 50.
Issues to Consider
Do you think that the employer can win that argument?
The analysis in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Meiorin would be applied.   The following questions might arise if the employer argued the Section 24(1)(b) defence:

*   Was a rule requiring new police hirers to be younger than 50 adopted for a purpose or goal that was rationally connected to the performance of the job;

•   Was this requirement adopted in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that purpose; and

•  Is this requirement reasonably necessary to accomplish this purpose, which includes an assessment of whether individual employees over 50 could be accommodated without undue hardship.

There are lots of cases challenging mandatory retirement policies relating to firefighters and police, but those cases assess the risks and capabilities of employees 60 and older.  See for example the analysis in Espey v. London (City), a case challenging a requirement for firefighters to retire at age 60.   Does the reasoning in that case have application to a refusal by police to hire a 51 year old?
Can you develop a legal argument for the employer, assuming that in fact age was a consideration in their decision not to hire the woman in this story?
If she wins, what should be the remedy?  Can the Tribunal order the employer to hire her at say 56 years old?  Should the Tribunal order reinstatement?

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
Two Professor Jobs in Industrial Relations or HRM
next post
First Contract Collective Agreement Arbitration in Ontario

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.