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

On an Employer's "Duty to Inquire" Into an Employee's Disability

by David Doorey November 6, 2012
written by David Doorey November 6, 2012

An employer decides to dismiss an argumentative, insubordinate employee.  Afterwards, the employee files a human rights complaint claiming she suffers from a mental disability that influenced her performance and therefore her dismissal amounted to discrimination based on that disability.  The employer says, “Wait a minute, she never told us she was disabled, and she never asked for any form of accommodation”. She can’t raise all that after the fact, can she?
This is the basic scenario raised in a recent decision of the B..C. Human Rights Tribunal in a case called Mackenzie v. Jace Holdings.
Facts:   The employer spoke to the employee multiple times about ‘insubordination’, and in particular the employee’s argumentative nature and moodiness in her dealings with supervisors.  The employee went on ‘stress leave’ in the summer of 2009, and had advised a manager prior to this, that she suffered from depression.  When she returned to work after 2 months’ leave, she again was argumentative, and the employer decided to dismiss her.  At no time did the employee request accommodation or inform the employer that she believed her behaviour was related to a disability.  She filed a human rights complaint alleging she was dismissed for reasons related to her mental or physical disability.
Analysis
The B.C. Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of physical and mental disability.  A doctor testified that the employee suffered from depression and an adjustment disorder, and that depression my cause a lose of insight regarding symptoms like irritability.  However, this report was not provided to the employer prior to the dismissal, and the employer had no direct medical evidence explaining that the employee was disabled.  As noted, the employee did not request accommodation.
The Tribunal began by noting that it is usually the responsibility of an employee to bring to the attention of the employer the need for accommodation of a disability.  However, where the employer has “reason to suspect that a medical condition may be impacting the employee’s ability to work“, its failure to make inquiries regarding the employee’s health may constitute discrimination.  That was the situation here:

It is evident that Ms. Mackenzie did not expressly seek any particular accommodation for her depression or other mental health issues.  It is also clear that Thrifty’s, although it knew generally that Ms. Mackenzie was off on “stress leave” did not review her behaviour and seek to determine whether there was any component of her behaviour that could be explained by her mental health.  Thrifty’s did not investigate whether Ms. Mackenzie had amental disability that impacted her behaviour…
At least three people at Thrifty’s (Lisa Trotter, Marlena and Kathy Mikkelsen) were aware that Ms. Mackenzie had mental health issues.  Ms. Trotter was the person who made the decision to terminate Ms. Mackenzie’s employment.  No effort appears to have been made by Thrifty’s to determine how Ms. Mackenzie’s disability affected her work performance or whether any accommodation may be required.

The employer argued that taking orders from management is a bona fide occupational requirement of the job, but that argument failed because the employer led no evidence that it explored the possibility of accommodating the employee’s disability, which it should have suspected given the employee’s recent stress leave, and her admission to management that she suffered from depression.
Conclusion:  The employer discriminated against the employee on the basis of disability by dismissing her without first making inquiries into whether accommodation was needed, and considering possible accommodation.  The employer was ordered to pay lost wages from the date of dismissal to the date (about 6 months later) when the employee returned to school, as well as $5000 for injury to dignity.
Questions for Discussion

Do you think that it is fair to require the employer to ask employees if they require accommodation when the employee has not suggested that accommodation is necessary or that poor job performance is due to a disability?
Does the decision make clear to you when the duty of an employer to make inquiries about possible disabilities and accommodation kicks in?
Do you think that it is easy or difficult for an employer to recognize when the duty applies?

0 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
Can a Law Firm Force Support Staff to be Finger Scanned?
next post
Thompson Rivers U. Law School is Hiring Labour/Employment Law Professor

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 ·
9h

Interested in your comment that you don’t have rules. I’d think that submitting an essay written by a machine without citing the machine is just straight up plagiarism.

My view is that any text not written by yourself needs to be fully cited.

Andres Guadamuz @technollama

@shahaoul @glynmoody Indeed. As we don't have rules, we can only mark what's in front of us. I can imagine some students using it judiciously, to get a technical definition for example, but in other cases the result can be an incoherent unstructured essay. So we mark it as that.

Reply on Twitter 1619691956413808640 Retweet on Twitter 1619691956413808640 2 Like on Twitter 1619691956413808640 23 Twitter 1619691956413808640
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
19h

McDonald's president who made $7.4 million last year says proposal to pay fast-food workers $22 an hour is 'costly and job-destroying' https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/mcdonalds-president-who-made-dollar74-million-last-year-says-proposal-to-pay-fast-food-workers-dollar22-an-hour-is-costly-and-job-destroying/ar-AA16Mc7D?ocid=a2hs&li=BBnb7Kz

Reply on Twitter 1619548631421562880 Retweet on Twitter 1619548631421562880 17 Like on Twitter 1619548631421562880 47 Twitter 1619548631421562880
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
19h

Google axes thousands of jobs while rolling in cash on orders from Wall Street pencil pushers. Pretty obvious where public anger should be directed.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2023/01/28/dont-do-evil-massive-layoffs-at-google-shine-a-light-on-tech-giants-ugly-side.html

Reply on Twitter 1619544883609407488 Retweet on Twitter 1619544883609407488 7 Like on Twitter 1619544883609407488 9 Twitter 1619544883609407488
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.