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

Is Science Centre Discriminating Against Muggles?

by David Doorey February 19, 2010
written by David Doorey February 19, 2010

Blimey, the Ontario Science Centre is planning a Harry Potter exhibit! And it is hiring staff for the exhibit, including people who will wander the exhibit carrying 10 pound lanterns and speaking “authentic British”.   Hhhmmm. Employment law students, are your magical human rights radars tingling yet?
As part of my ongoing series on discrimination laws and human rights legislation, consider this job posting for the Harry Potter staff.
Among the expressed requirements for this job are the following:

  • You must be able to maintain an authentic British accent for the duration of your shift.
  • You must be able to continuously carry and hold a lantern weighing up to 10 pounds while delivering lines from a script.
  • The ad notes also that:  “You will be on your feet at all times while working.”
  • The ideal candidate will have as much schedule flexibility as possible to work mornings, afternoons, and some evenings, on any days of the week and weekends, from April 9, 2010 through late August 2010.

The law is very strict when it comes to job advertisements.  The government does not want employers weeding people out in the job ads on the basis of prohibited grounds.  So, has the OSC posted an illegal ad?
Take a careful look at Section 23(1), which is the section that governs job advertisements:

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.

This seems to say very clearly that employers cannot include job requirements in an ad that indirectly discriminate against potential applicants on the basis of a prohibited ground, doesn’t it?
Do you see any indirect discrimination, that is, a requirement that applies equally to everyone, but that tends to disqualify some people because they have a characteristic that is protected by a prohibited ground?  Well, there are a number of possibilities, aren’t there?  What sorts of people are likely to be unable to stand for an entire shift, while carrying a 10 pound lantern?  Do you think the ability to speak with an authentic British accent might be difficult for people from non-English speaking countries?  What sorts of people might be less likely to be able to work the sorts of flexible hours required (or at least preferred)?
Do you see discrimination in any of these job requirements on the basis of the prohibited grounds in Section 5 of the Code?
Now, if the job requirements in the ad do discriminate, does the OSC nevertheless have a defense?   I note that the ad states way at the bottom, the following:

“Accommodation will be provided in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code. “

Ahh.  Does that get the OSC off the hook, if their job ad does discriminate on the basis of prohibited grounds?
Think about this.  If you are a person in a wheelchair, for example, with a strong Jamaican accent, and you love Harry Potter and would love this job, would you have a strong human rights complaint that this job ad illegally discriminates against you?  Has the OSC protected itself by adding the ‘we will accommodate you’ line in the ad?
My thanks to employment lawyer Andrew Langille for sending along this ad to me.

2 comments
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
Racial Slurs by Employer Breach Human Rights Code
next post
Should the Province Make the TTC an "Essential Service"?

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 ·
30m

Name an institution that respects freedom of expression more than universities.

Chanel Pfahl 🇨🇦 @ChanLPfa

“A @PierrePoilievre government will not only repeal the censorship bill C-11, but we will require every university that gets federal funds to commit itself to honouring the freedom of expression that we are guaranteed in our Charter of Rights.” #CSFN23 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639053857836679168

Reply on Twitter 1639141695983067137 Retweet on Twitter 1639141695983067137 1 Like on Twitter 1639141695983067137 3 Twitter 1639141695983067137
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
3h

Got me some pretty fine tickets to the @Canucks v @SanJoseSharks.

Reply on Twitter 1639110564260765696 Retweet on Twitter 1639110564260765696 Like on Twitter 1639110564260765696 4 Twitter 1639110564260765696
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
10h

The Hall and Oates defence is a classic. Even if it failed.

ryan white @ryandwhite12

@TheLawofWork My response to posts like this is always to go back to an old Slotnick decision from 2002 in which a TTC employee tried to get reinstated by arguing he didn't threat a supervisor, he was just singing Hall and Oates man...

Reply on Twitter 1639003611433762818 Retweet on Twitter 1639003611433762818 1 Like on Twitter 1639003611433762818 1 Twitter 1639003611433762818
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.