What are the legal ” family status ” issues involved when a single mother asks for time off to care for her sick child. What about when an only child asks for a reduced work week to care for an elderly parent?
Discriminating on the basis of family status has been illegal in most Canadian jurisdictions for many years. Recently, the courts and adjudicators have been called upon to decide the scope of an employer’s obligation to accommodate on the basis of family status.
In these cases, an employee generally asks to miss work (or change his/her hours) to care for a child or a parent and the employer refuses.
In reality, most work obligations interfere with parental obligations and employees make arrangements for their charges, such as daycare, temporary health care workers or spousal support. The issue in these cases is deciding on when a parental obligation trumps a work obligation. There needs to be some mechanism to deal with a request for flexibility in working arrangements to allow employees to take care of their family. To this end, a two-tier test has been developed.
Most work obligations interfere with parental obligations. The issue in these cases is when does a parental obligation trump a work obligation?
If work obligations always trump parental obligations then a parent could never prove discrimination. If parental obligations always trump work obligations then an employer would always be required to accommodate the employee’s request.
The Two-Part Legal Test
1. Generally, an employer has no duty to accommodate an employee unless the employee can prove a prima facie case of discrimination. Most family status cases have focused on whether the employee has proven a prima facie case.
2. Once an employee has proven discrimination then the employer has a duty to accommodate unless it causes undue hardship.
Kevin MacNeill and Kristine Taylor presented interesting papers on this issue at Ontario Bar Association seminars held on June 7 & 13, 2013, respectively. Both speakers identified three different interpretations of family status discrimination.
The Three Approaches
It will be difficult for employers to know what obligations exist until the Supreme Court of Canada decides how to reconcile these three different lines of cases.
The Narrow Approach
The “Narrow (British Columbia) Approach” deals with a change in a term of employment (i.e. a change in an employee’s hours of work) which results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation. The B.C. Court of Appeal stated: “… in the vast majority of situations in which there is a conflict between a work requirement and a family obligation it would be difficult to make out a prima facie case (of discrimination)”. Under this approach, it is difficult for an employee to prove a human rights violation if an employer has refused to accommodate him/her.
The Broad Approach
Under the “Broad (Federal) Approach” the federal court has rejected the B.C. approach. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions have also specifically rejected the B.C approach and ruled that it is not incumbent upon the employee to prove serious interference with a substantial parental or other family obligation.
The Middle Approach
In the Power Stream case, an arbitrator rejected both the B.C. and Federal approaches and adopted the “Middle Approach”. Arbitrator Jesin set out five factors that should be considered when deciding whether an employee has made out a prima facie case of discrimination including (i) what prompted the adverse effect on the employee; that is, a change in a term of employment, or a change in the employee’s personal circumstances? and (ii) what efforts has the employee made to self-accommodate? A 2012 decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal which considered accommodation for elder care also rejected the B.C. approach.
The Duty to Accommodate
Once the employee proves discrimination the employer must accommodate the employee’s request unless it causes undue hardship. It is essential that the employer satisfy both the procedural and substantial aspects of the duty to accommodate. An employer has a positive duty to inquire and assess an accommodation request on a case-by-case basis.
What is an Employer To Do?
At the moment, it depends on where the request for accommodation is made. British Columbia employers have the least onerous obligations and federally regulated employers appear to have the most onerous obligations.
Regardless of an employer’s jurisdiction, an employer should carefully review the factual background surrounding each employee’s accommodation request. Thereafter the employer and employee should collaboratively explore possible solutions together.
Given the aging population and our burdened health care system, I expect the number of requests for family status accommodation will increase in the future. As soon as a single approach to defining this legal obligation is identified, I also anticipate that most requests for family status accommodation will be addressed quickly.
If you have any questions about responding to employee requests for accommodation because of family status, please contact the MacLeod Law Firm at 1 (888) 640-1728 or at [email protected]. To subscribe to our blog for employers, click here
The Facts A 23 year old woman was born with a physical disability. As a result, she uses forearm crutches to mobilize which helps her with stability. One day she planned to meet some friends at a restaurant. When she arrived, she asked a server to use the washroom...
It’s been four months since COVID-19 changed our world. I thought Ontario would be shut down for two weeks, but I was so wrong. There is no end in sight. Many large non-manufacturers have already decided that employees will not return to the office until at least next...
Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc.: Ontario Court of Appeal Strikes Down Another Termination Clause
In this case, Mr. Waksdale was terminated without cause after about eight (8) months of employment. Both parties agreed that the “without cause” termination clause in his employment contract was enforceable. Both parties also agreed the “with cause” termination...