Sentences with phrase «accommodate family status»

As with all other prohibited grounds under this legislation, employers have a duty to accommodate family status needs to the point of undue hardship.

The Federal Court rejected the BC «serious interference» test and has outlined a broader interpretation of the duty to accommodate family status, which opens the door to requiring accommodation of employee lifestyle choices [3].

The duty to accommodate family status will only arise when there is a prima facie case of discrimination.

Peter Straszynski discusses accommodating family status including what «family status» means and what you need to know about it as part of the Torkin Manes LegalPoint Video Series.

First Reference Returning from parental leave and accommodating family status After 20 weeks of parental leave, I'm back in front of my computer, checking my email, catching up on workplace changes, putting together a schedule, recalling whether we use the serial comma (only when necessary) and generally getting back into the swing of things.

Not exact matches

We had — family come from as far as Edinburgh and Devon, 2 Christmas dinners to accommodate said family, 2 present opening sessions, some good long walks to work off excessive food, cousins all catching up with each other, a bit too much to eat and drink, relaxing afternoons when we could do nothing because it was raining and anyway it was getting dark soon so we might as well call it a day, and a mammoth monopoly game, which carried on so far that someone had bought jail, chance and community chest, and someone else had «banker» debt status, which meant he could borrow as much as he wanted.

To keep its status as a family car, the new Mercedes E-Class T - Modell wil be available with an additional folding bench that can accommodate small children in the luggage compartment area.

Failure to accommodate an employee's family status can result in awards of damages, without the necessity of proving any actual monetary loss.

In rejecting the employer's position that the applicant had to establish that it had «failed to accommodate» his family status, Vice-Chair Price wrote the following:

With a number of recent Human Rights Tribunal decisions, however, employers are quickly learning about their legal obligation to accommodate employees on the ground of their «family status».

The Tribunal also accepted the argument that an assessment of whether a claimant had made reasonable efforts to meet family status obligations (i.e. to self - accommodate) does not belong at the prima facie discrimination stage.

Employers must accommodate an employee's «family status» related needs up to the point of undue hardship.

Section 2 of the CHRA provides that the purpose of the CHRA is to «extend the laws in Canada to give effect... to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.»

Given «family status» is a protected ground, the employer has a duty to accommodate.

The Vice Chair stated that, «in [his] view, the correct approach to an allegation of a failure to accommodate on the basis of family status is as set out in [the] decision in Devaney -LSB-...] which requires demonstration by the Applicant that a rule or requirement had an adverse effect on her or him because of requirements or needs relating to or arising out of the parent - child relationship.»

Johnstone set off a firestorm of debate at the start of this year when the court affirmed the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision that employers had the legal obligation to accommodate an employee's family status — including parental responsibilities, specifically finding childcare.

While the court found that the employer had prima facie discriminated against the complainant on the basis of family status, the matter was remitted to the arbitrator to determine whether the employer had met its duty to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship.

The CNR argued that CHRT had erred in finding that a case of family status discrimination had been made out, in finding that the CNR had not met its duty to accommodate, and in awarding extra damages based on CNR's reckless conduct.

Johnston complained that her employer failed to accommodate her family needs, and treated her adversely based on her family status, which in this case means the raising of two young children.

The employer's refusal to accommodate the employee's family status was indeed discriminatory, wilful and reckless, and ordered the employer to reimburse the lost wages and benefits, awarding $ 35,000 in damages.

To adopt the formulation of the test set out in Hoyt and Johnstone without recalling the actual facts from which it sprang is to suggest that family status always trumps the obligations of work and always triggers the duty to accommodate.

The Code and OHRC policy place a duty on service providers to accommodate the needs of their patrons on the grounds of disability, age and family status.

While employees may request accommodation for childcare and eldercare obligations under human rights legislation on the basis of «family status,» the full scope of these protections — and the extent to which employers must accommodate — is still under development.

She filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination based on family status and it was decided CN had to accommodate the woman.

«Family Status and the Duty to Accommodate» at the Ontario Bar Association's 13th Annual Current Issues in Employment Law Conference (May 1, 2015)

The Applicant had provided his employer with the necessary information, that he had to care for his newborn son (family status), and from that point forward the employer had a duty to accommodate the Applicant short of undue hardship.