Sentences with phrase «of discrimination on the basis of family status»

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.

Not exact matches

• You have the right to receive care provision free of discrimination based on race, membership of the traveller community, gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability.

Article 11 (2) In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures: (a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status; (b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances; (c) To encourage the provision of necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life

In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 («Title VI»), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 («Title IX»), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 («Section 504»), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 («ADA»), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 («The Age Act»), applicants for admission and employment, students, parents, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and employment, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with Capital City Public Charter School («Capital City») are hereby notified that Capital City Public Charter School does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, political affiliation, source of income, or disability in admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities.

Additionally, in order to ensure that students and families feel safe on their campuses, the schools do not collect any information about the immigration statuses of students, and have enacted policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin («Commitment to Students»).

29 USC 2601, Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 This act entitles employees leave for reasonable medical reasons and prohibits employment discrimination based on family sFamily and Medical Leave Act of 1993 This act entitles employees leave for reasonable medical reasons and prohibits employment discrimination based on family sfamily status.

In Ontario, the Human Rights Code protects the «right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability» and also protects against discrimination based on the intersection of multiple of these grounds.

The Fair Housing Act is a Federal law that prohibits discrimination based on a borrower's race, color, religion, gender, handicap, familial status (families with children) or national origin and applies to all aspects of mortgage and home equity lending.

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 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 the context of family status, the Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that «the childcare obligations arising in discrimination claim [s] based on family status must be one of substance and the complainant must have tried to reconcile family obligations with work obligations».

Discrimination: Irrespective of length of service, an employee may bring a claim for discriminatory dismissal or discrimination based on any one of the nine discriminatory grounds contrary to equality legislation (i.e., gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race (including colour, nationality and ethnic or national origin) and membership of the travellDiscrimination: Irrespective of length of service, an employee may bring a claim for discriminatory dismissal or discrimination based on any one of the nine discriminatory grounds contrary to equality legislation (i.e., gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race (including colour, nationality and ethnic or national origin) and membership of the travelldiscrimination based on any one of the nine discriminatory grounds contrary to equality legislation (i.e., gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race (including colour, nationality and ethnic or national origin) and membership of the traveller community).

As a result of several workplace incidents, the complainant alleged that she had been subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex and family status as well as sexual harassment.

Ms. Johnston claimed that CBSA had discriminated against her on the basis of «family status», one the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the CHRA.

The Court concluded that to make a case of discrimination on the basis of sex or family status related to breastfeeding, proper evidence would be required.

Discrimination was alleged on the basis of gender, family status and perceived disability.

For example, a young lone mother receiving social assistance who is looking for housing or employment might experience discrimination based on her sex, age, family status and receipt of social assistance.

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

There are civil rights laws that limit this discretion in the case, for example, of discrimination based on race, or family status.

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

Here, and without adopting all of its reasoning, I can find no error in the Board's ultimate conclusion that Ms. Flatt was breastfeeding her child out of a personal choice and that discrimination on that basis, if it was discrimination, was discrimination on the basis of family status.

I need not further discuss the Board's analysis of case law dealing with the question of whether work requirements that impact an employee's breastfeeding schedule constitute discrimination on the basis of sex or family status.

[33] It seems to me that to make a case of discrimination on the basis of sex or family status related to breastfeeding, an applicant would have to provide proper evidence, foreseeably divulging confidential information.

Housing discrimination occurs when someone is denied housing based on his or her race, gender identity / sexual orientation, national origin, religion, children or family status, disability, age, veteran status, source of income, and more.

Specifically, the Tribunal held that the test for discrimination was the same in all cases and expressly rejected the family status test set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Johnstone, which it viewed as creating a higher standard for family status claims than cases based on other forms of discrimination.

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:

We do not discriminate nor tolerate discrimination on the basis of gender identity, ethnicity, colour, race, marital status, sexual orientation, age, family status, employment status, faith or political opinion.

Cases such as this largely depend on their particular facts, although the board did rely on the principles set out by the Federal Court of Appeal's Johnstone decision to determine whether there was a prima facie case of discrimination based on 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 light of this decision, employers should be particularly careful not to take actions that could be interpreted as discrimination based on family status, or else they may face costly awards against them.

There, in upholding a Canadian Border Services Agency worker's claim based on a work schedule that conflicted with her childcare obligations, the Federal Court of Appeal determined that to establish discrimination on a prima facie basis on the ground of family status in relation to childcare, it would be necessary for an individual to show that:

In examining the case law on family status, the Tribunal took issue with the existence of a different test for family discrimination (the Johnstone test) than the test for discrimination on the basis of other protected grounds.

Given that Botony breached its obligations, the Court considered what an appropriate remedy might be under the Human Rights Code, which prohibits employment - related 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.

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

While employees are not protected from general unfairness, where an employee believes that a negative decision was made, in whole or in part, on the basis of a «prohibited ground of discrimination» (characteristics such as race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, family status, criminal record, and social position), he or she may file a complaint.

These anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination based on many different personal characteristics, including: race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, colour, citizenship, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, and disability.

Courts and arbitrators have confirmed that the prohibited ground of discrimination based on «family status» includes discrimination based on a parent's childcare obligations, so an employer is prohibited from discriminating against an employee based on their childcare obligations.

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 Ontario Human Rights Code protects Ontarians from illegal discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or, in some situations, the receipt of public assistance.

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.

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).

Are work requirements that impact on an employee's breastfeeding schedules discrimination and, if so, are they discrimination on the basis of sex or family status or both?

The CBSA must develop a plan to prevent further incidents of discrimination based on family status and develop policies to specifically address family status accommodation requests.

The grievor's representative submitted that employment policies or requirements that had an adverse impact on a woman's decision to breastfeed her child could be considered discrimination on the basis of either or both sex or family status.

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.

An update on the recent decisions that address the complicated concepts of discrimination and accommodation on the basis of pregnancy and 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-.

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.