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

Starbucks Comes to York. Is it violating the Human Rights Code?

by David Doorey September 13, 2011
written by David Doorey September 13, 2011

With the big news that Starbucks has just joined Tim Hortons and Second Cup on the York campus, I thought it would be useful to reflect on a post I did two years ago entitled Starbucks and the Discriminatory Application Form.
In that post, I noted that the standard Starbucks application form likely violated Section 23 of the Ontario Human Rights Code because it requests information that employers are not permitted to request in an application form.  Section 23(2) says this about job application forms:

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.

That section means, in essence, an employer cannot include questions on an application form that would tend to disclose to the employer that the applicant is a member of a group that is protected under  Section 5.  In other words, questions that will disclose to an employer: an applicant’s religion, the presence of a physical or mental disability, ethnicity, place of origin, age, marital status, family status, record of offence, or race are unlawful.
In the earlier post, I reviewed the Starbucks application form question by question against this law.  A couple of questions raised my eyebrows.  What do you think?
What is the name and address of your High School?
Leaving aside that this is completely irrelevant to whether you can make a latte, it is almost certainly an illegal question on a job application form.  The Human Rights Commission’s manual on Hiring says so (see p. 7).  Can you identify why?  Think about whether the location and name of your high school might tend to identify anything about you that could relate to one of those prohibited grounds.  What about your university?  Do you think there is something about where you go to university that differentiates it from where you go to elementary or high school?
Are you able to work overtime?
The Employment Standards Act defines overtime as more than 44 hours in a week.  Starbucks wants to know in its application form if you can work more than that. Do you think Starbucks will prefer applicants who check YES?  Now look at the list of designated (protected) groups in Section 5 again.  Can you think of how membership in one of those groups might tend to impede your ability to work overtime?
How about “family status”? Section 10 defines that as “the status of being in a parent and child relationship”. There is no doubt that someone who has children may have a harder time working 48 hours per week than a childless person, right? Does that mean that a question asking if someone can work more than 44 hours per week has an adverse effect on applicants with children? If so, then the question on the Starbucks application form is illegal. If not, then what exactly does it mean that an employer cannot include a question that indirectly classifies applicants on the basis that they have children?
Or, how about “disability”? Can you imagine someone with a disability who cannot work more than 8 hours at once? If so, then does a question asking if applicants can work more than 8 hours, or more than 44 hours in a week, tend to disadvantage or disqualify such a person?
What do you think?  Is this question about overtime legal or illegal?
If a question about the ability to work overtime is not indirect discrimination, then why is that?

If anyone has a York Starbuck’s application form, or other job application form that you would like discussed on the blog, send it along to me.

5 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
Ontario's Election: The "Foreign Workers" Subsidy Controversy
next post
Ontario Election: Unions and Political Debate

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 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
4h

@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 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
5h

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 13646239761740923167Like on Twitter 136462397617409231612Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
6h

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.