Sentences with phrase «employer accommodated the employee»

It may seem puzzling that a court can find an employer has breached its duty to accommodate but that the defence of undue hardship nonetheless applies, when the question was whether the employer accommodated the employee to the point of undue hardship.

Not exact matches

Smart employees will seek retraining for new skills through continuing education classes, and employers will offer company - sponsored options to accommodate them.

Canada may have a pretty generous policy towards maternity and parental leave — especially compared to the U.S. — but many women still encounter significant career setbacks or experience the so - called «motherhood penalty» when they take time off to have kids, and many employers still wrestle with how to accommodate the disruption of employees going on leave.

Differing cultures, religions, and employee needs mean that today's employer must accommodate diversity when it comes to working, thinking and interacting with others.

In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Every employer, including the state and any political subdivision, shall provide a reasonable amount of break time to accommodate an employee desiring to express breast milk for the employee's infant child.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 155 (1998) encourages the state and employers to support and encourage the practice of breastfeeding by striving to accommodate the needs of employees, and by ensuring that employees are provided with adequate facilities for breastfeeding and expressing milk for their children.

The memo cites Executive Law § 296 (10)(a), which mandates that employees religious observances or practices be accomnodated «unless, after engaging in a bona fide effort, the employer demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate the employee's or prospective employee's sincerely held religious observance or practice... without undue hardship.»

he Bathroom Bill would force New York employers to accommodate cross-dressing employees in the workplace, would make New York businesses liable for real or invented transgressions upon a civil right to «gender identity or expression,» and would give intact biological males who assert female gender identities access to women's locker rooms, changing areas, and restrooms in places of public accommodation, thus compromising the privacy and safety of women and girls.

That's why California law requires employers with five or more employees to accommodate disabled workers.

The law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the employer's business.

The takeaway for employers is that you may have to accommodate an employee with an addiction to cigarettes.

If you are an employee who has an aversion to cigarette smoke, then your employer may have a duty to accommodate you as well.

For instance, in recent years, he has written or spoken on issues such as mandatory retirement, privacy legislation and transborder data flows of personal employee information, employers» duty to accommodate and the validity of settlements in labour and employment law.

It is often difficult to determine at what point the accommodation obligation has ended because the employer has accommodated the employee's disability - related limitations to the point of undue hardship.

According to the Ontario's Human Rights Commission website, «employers have a duty to accommodate an employee's creed to the point of undue hardship, including by providing time off for religious holidays.»

The takeaway from this decision, or at least my brief summary of it, is that employees do not need to establish both that their employers violated their rights and that the employer could not accommodate them; they must only establish a violation.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the employer's decision to put the employee on an unpaid leave of absence in August 2010 was not an infringement of his rights because, at that time, the employer had accommodated the employee to the point of undue hardship.

Most employers are already aware that they have a legal duty to accommodate an employee's disability, up to the point of undue hardship.

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».

Employers need employees to be working at certain times and, for operational needs, often can not accommodate every request — even if they wanted to.

Employer Obligated to Accommodate Employee's Childcare Obligations: Attorney General of Canada v. Johnstone

Employers in BC have an obligation to accommodate an employee's childcare obligations where a workplace policy, rule or standard imposes upon the employee «serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty».

More: Eugene Volokh noting that Title VII as long enforced requires employers to accommodate employees» religiously - based requests when the burdens of doing so are small, and that Star Transport — which has since reportedly gone out of business — did not put forth a showing otherwise in this case.

If you're looking for advice on employee entitlement, employer obligations, EI benefits, or the Ontario Human Rights Code to accommodate pregnant workers, this guide is for you.

In effect, provincially - regulated employers in Ontario must accommodate employees who request time off for reasons involving domestic or sexual violence.

To what extent does an employer have to accommodate an employee's other work and personal commitments when those commitments are unrelated to grounds protected under human rights legislation?

Peter Straszynski explains the workplace challenges of accommodating the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes, and recommends a number of steps that employers can take to ensure that their policies accommodate employees» needs while balancing impairment and safety concerns.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission's recent publication «Impaired at Work — A guide to accommodating substance dependence,» which aimed to assist federally regulated employers address substance dependence in the workplace, was «really useful» in informing employers and employees of their rights and obligations, for example.

Further, the arbitrator found that, «nothing in the collective agreement requires the employer to accommodate an employee's outside interests or to accommodate an employee's other employment.»

All employers should have a clear and consistent process in place for accommodating employees disabled by barriers.

Saunders is working on a proposal for a program on how employers can accommodate employees who have disabilities.

However, if no reasonable alternative exists, an employer has a duty to accommodate the employee's need for time off, provided it does not cause undue hardship to the employer.

Furthermore, in certain cases, such as alcohol or substance abuse, an employer may be expected to accommodate the employee since such substance abuse may be a disability that prohibits the employer from terminating the employee under the Human Rights Code or Canadian Human Rights Act.

Notwithstanding that that this function was only 5 % the overall role, Arbitrator McNamee held that the Hospital would have been required to pay for an additional employee during that shift to cover for that 5 % and that it was not required to do so, concluding that the «authorities were unanimous... that an employer is not required to accommodate to the extent that it provides another employee specifically for the purpose of assisting a disabled employee to perform the essential duties of his / her job».

I don't think the case is saying that an accommodation plan is set in stone and can not be reworked if further issues are identified... The issue that was put into question in this case by the employee was the employer's efforts and wanting to work within (even amending the plan) the set plan to try to accommodate the employee.

The human rights laws of all Canadian jurisdictions have long held that employers are obligated to accommodate disabled employees or candidates to «the point of undue hardship»... [more]

Under changes to the Law Against Discrimination that took effect back in 2008, an employer has a statutory obligation to accommodate its employees» «sincerely held religious observance or practice.»

With this decison, the Ontario Court of Appeal specifically acknowledged the appropriateness of punitive damages awards against employers who discriminate, harass or fail to accommodate disabled employees.

For example, if there is a reasonable requirement for the particular job that the employee can not meet because of a particular characteristics this will not count as discrimination if accommodating the employee characteristic will cause undue hardship on the employer (Alberta Human Rights Act s. 7 (3)-RRB-.

Although the debate over the extent of employers» duty to accommodate employees» childcare obligations will likely continue until there is a definitive ruling by an appellate court (and quite possibly the Supreme Court of Canada), prudent employers should carefully assess any request for accommodation based on family obligations, taking into account such factors as:

Employers have the duty to accommodate such employees by making the workplace more accessible and suitable for the employee.

The new policy statement is especially topical for employers, who have a statutory duty under Ontario's Human Rights Code to accommodate employees with respect to disability to the point of undue hardship.

In such cases, an employer's duty to accommodate a disabled employee does not restrict the employer from terminating an employee for being unable to perform the essential work duties.

A one - liner medical note, particularly when attempting to justify a long - term absence, does not provide enough information for an employer to assess whether it can accommodate an employee's return to work.

If an employee's schedule already accommodates voting time requirements, then the employer is not required to make scheduling adjustments.

These protections include an employer's obligation to accommodate the disability, as well as a general prohibition against terminating an employee's employment as a result of the disability.

If the accommodation fails due to the employee's refusal to cooperate with the employer, then the employer's duty to accommodate is discharged.

Employees must also be sure to inform their employer of any disabilities requiring accommodation, as human rights tribunal will not expect the employer to have accommodated an employee if they didn't know that the employee was disabled.

If the employee has permanent limitations related to the work injury, the employer has to decide whether they can accommodate the restrictions.