|
Home • The Meiorin Case • The Grismer Case • The L.B. Case • The Desormeaux Case • The Berg Case • The Howard Case • The Meikle Case • Ontario Human Rights Commission • Queen's University • Editorial • Printer Friendly Version
-
How
do you determine if a standard constitutes a bona fide occupational
requirement?
5
2
In the Meiorin Case, an
employer wrongfully dismisses a female employee who fails to meet a
newly imposed aerobic standard. The Supreme Court of Canada
establishes the Meiorin three-part test for bona fide occupational
requirements to determine that the aerobic standard is
discriminatory against women and does not constitute a B.F.O.R. This test becomes key in interpreting the duty
to accommodate in all instances.
-
How
do you reconcile a standard that is meant to apply universally with
the need to accommodate an individual with a disability?
5
6
In the Grismer case, a service provider wrongfully denies a
drivers license to a man with a disability who fails a generic
visual acuity test. The Supreme Court of Canada interprets the
Meiorin 3-part test to include the duty to test persons with
disabilities
individually.
-
What
are the responsibilities of individuals seeking accommodation for a
disability?
5
10
In the L.B. (committee of) case, an employer rightfully
dismisses an employee with a mental disability who fails to provide
medical documentation upon request. A Human Rights Commission
interprets the Meiorin three-part test to establish the duty of
employees to facilitate the accommodation process.
-
What
documentation is considered appropriate to demonstrate the need for
accommodation for a disability?
5
24
In the Desormeaux case, an employer rejects a medical
assessment and wrongfully fires a chronically absent employee with a
disability. The Human Rights Tribunal establishes the legitimacy of
the assessment and denounces the failure of the employer to
accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship.
-
How do the rules for accommodating persons with
disabilities apply to universities and their students?
In the Berg
case, a university denies a key and an evaluation sheet to a
depressed student with a history of erratic behaviour. The Supreme
Court of Canada rules that universities are service providers; that
keys and evaluations are services customarily offered to students;
and that they must therefore provide, without discrimination, those
same services to students with disabilities.
-
Just
how far does the duty to accommodate university students with
disabilities go?
5
20
In the Howard case, a university refuses to pay $40, 000 a
year to accommodate a student with a hearing disability who has
exhausted all sources of external funding. The B.C. Human Rights
Council rules that given the size of the university, a cost of $40,
000 a year does not constitute undue hardship.
-
Under
U.K. human rights law, what happens to an employee’s benefits if she
is forced to resign as a result of her employer’s refusal to
accommodate her disability (constructive dismissal)?
5
28
In the Meikle case, an employer refuses to accommodate a
teacher with a disability, who is eventually forced to resign. A
U.K. Court of Appeal, establishes that this act of constructive
dismissal is discriminatory and orders the employer to compensate
the employee for lost benefits and wages. This U.K. decision is
analogous to Canadian Human Rights precedents.
|
