Sentences with phrase «basis of family status»

Work must cause a «serious interference» with a substantial family duty for the employee to prove discrimination on basis of family status [2]-RRB-.

discrimination on the basis of family status is the same test as is applicable to other grounds of discrimination under the Act; however, the Court also held that the test is «flexible» and «contextual».

The Tribunal held that the failure to grant Ms. Johnstone a static, full - time schedule was discriminatory on the basis of family status (2010 CHRT 20).

The Court concluded that in order to establish prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status, a claimant must show:

Applying the newly - articulated test to Ms. Johnstone, the Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that she had made out a case of prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status.

In Johnstone, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that the test for prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status is the same test as is applicable to other grounds of discrimination under the Act; however, the Court also held that the test is «flexible» and «contextual».

When faced with a request to accommodate on the basis of family status, an employer should treat that request with the same seriousness and diligence as a request for accommodation based on disability.

Ms. Johnstone alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of family status, contrary to the Act.

discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal determined that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status, the complainant must show that she is a parent with particular parental obligations, that the employer has treated her adversely with respect to her employment, and that there is a connection between her parental obligations and the adverse treatment.

Denying time off may constitute discrimination on the basis of family status.

Significantly, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's rejection of the test articulated in Health Sciences Assoc. of B.C. v. Campbell River North Island Transition Society («Campbell River «-RRB- which stated that a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status could only be established where there was a «serious interference» with a substantial parental or other family duty.

In finding that the applicant had not been discriminated against on the basis of sex or family status the Honourable Justice Johanne Trudel directed her attention to the four factors necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status.

Arbitrators and other decision - makers have applied different approaches to establishing prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status.

In Nelson v. Bodwell High School (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 75 a single, male teacher with no children claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his family status because he was not eligible for his employer's Child Benefit Scheme («CBS»).

The Court held that the Board further erred by attributing human rights protection to all family - related leave permitted under the collective agreement, contrary to the Federal Court's earlier identification of the following four factors to establish discrimination on the basis of family status related to family responsibilities:

In Flatt v. Treasury Board (Department of Industry), the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board has rejected a public servant's complaint that Industry Canada discriminated against her on the basis of family status when it refused to let her work from home full - time while breastfeeding.

Thankfully, the Ontario Court of Appeal has recently provided some clarity on the subject when it recently upheld a decision that found discrimination on the basis of family status after a work schedule was changed and interfered with an employee's childcare arrangements.

The trial judge held that the employee was unjustly dismissed, the employer had engaged in reprisals, and that the employer had discriminated on the basis of family status, including intentionally scheduling shifts that would cause the employee difficulty in making day care arrangements.

What does it mean to discriminate on the basis of family status?

The courts ruled that the cases constituted discrimination on the basis of family status.

The board found that «discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding, if it is discrimination, is discrimination on the basis of family status rather than sex or gender.»

In Canada (Attorney General) v. Hicks, 2015 FC 599 (CanLII) the Federal Court heard an appeal concerning the validity of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal («CHRT») decision which held that the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada («HRSDC») discriminated against its employee on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal's decisions in Miraka and Misetich are significant for employers because they appear to broaden the field of circumstances where workers may demonstrate that they experienced a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal in Misetich created a new procedure for an employee to establish that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of family status with respect to either childcare or eldercare obligations, which is considered to be in line with the general test for all forms of discrimination:

Notably, in both cases, the Tribunal concluded the employee had not proven discrimination on the basis of family status.

Here are the answers to five of employers» most frequently asked questions about workplace discrimination on the basis of family status.

Practically, in the case of accommodation on the basis of family status, practically, a worksite transfer or scheduling modifications often adequately addresses the request.

The Tribunal concluded the employer discriminated against the employee on the basis of family status when it gave top - up benefits for parental leave to adoptive parents but denied them to biological parents, depriving the employee of money and time with his child — and awarded him a paid parental leave with top - up even though the child was no longer an infant.

Ms. Seeley filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of family status.

The employee, a biological parent, was denied top - up benefits and lodged a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of family status.

But this — and potentially the test — changed in 2017: two Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decisions, Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc. and subsequently Ananda v. Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, dealt with that issue — and flat - out rejected the notion that the test for establishing discrimination on the basis of family status differs from the test in the case of any other protected ground for several reasons, including:

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.»

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 following factors were considered by Justice Mandamin to be relevant to a finding that there was discrimination on the basis of family status:

In 2010, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released three cases involving Alberta women who alleged they were being discriminated against on the basis of family status.

Thus, Ms. Seeley's specific parental childcare obligations and CNR's response to her request for an extension to address possible options all resulted in prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status (Seeley at para 95).

The majority of human rights statutes in Canada establish that an employer can not discriminate against an employee on the basis of family status.

This shift away from tests that imposed a sort of two - tiered human rights regime in which the threshold required to demonstrate discrimination on the basis of family status seemed to be higher than the threshold required to establish a prima facie claim on the basis of other enumerated grounds is likely not surprising.

In concluding that discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding, if it is discrimination, is discrimination on the basis of family status rather than of sex or gender, Board Member Richardson wrote the following:

It was discrimination on the basis of family status in that breastfeeding stemmed from a woman's status as a parent with obligations and responsibilities with respect to the care and nourishment of her child.

[63] The applicant baldly asserted to the respondent that the change in hours discriminated against her on the basis of her family status.

Ontario has a similar test [4]; discrimination on the basis of family status will be triggered when an employee demonstrates that the work arrangement conflicts with his or her ability to perform a required caregiver obligation.

It's also important to know what discrimination on the basis of family status means.

Interviewers aren't allowed to discriminate against you on the basis of family status or physical disability, which means they can't ask you about those things.

In the 1993 case, Baby Girl Sarah Bradley v. Lime Tree Village Community Club, the district court held that a housing development discriminated on the basis of family status and assessed a $ 50,000 civil penalty.