First Reference Talks

Business, Payroll, Employment Law, Internal Controls & You!

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Free Updates

Free speech v. discrimination: When workplace rules cross the line

Author: Andrew Lawson

Posted on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 at 10:00

Tweet

emailAn employee distributes this email message among your workers:

“Any person engaging in homosexuality offends Almighty God and will spend eternity burning in hell.”

As an employer, can you:

  • ● Tell the employee to stop?
  • ● Discipline this employee?
  • ● Fire this employee for cause?

What if you just ignore the message? What about free speech? Freedom of religion?

If you discipline the employee who sent this email message you may be discriminating on the basis of that employee’s religion, and this is against the law. A workplace rule or demand may be illegal if it has a negative effect on an employee because of their religion—UNLESS you can prove that the rule against or demand to stop spreading such messages is considered a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). That is, the rule is needed for the smooth operation of your business.

A BFOR is legitimate when:

  • It is rationally connected to the performance of a worker’s job
  • It is adopted in good faith and necessary for a work-related purpose and
  • It would be an undue hardship on the employer to accommodate the individual involved in the behaviour

The recent case of Friesen v. Fisher Bay Seafood and others, 2009 BCHRT 1 is a great example.

A fish processing employer in British Columbia told a supervisor that he had to stop “preaching” his religious beliefs to his co-workers. The supervisor continued to “preach” after being asked to stop. The supervisor was fired and filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal claiming he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs.

There was no dispute that the only reason for the employee’s termination was his refusal to stop preaching during his work hours. The employee established that he was sincere in his beliefs that his religious practice required him to preach at any time. He believed that, “if you don’t preach people will never know what Jesus Christ is about”.

However, the tribunal agreed with the employer that this rule was a BFOR. The rule helped to maintain an environment where all employees’ beliefs were respected. Workplace rules must protect all of your employees’ interests and contribute to the smooth operation of your business.

However, be mindful to treat all employees with respect and make sufficient attempts to accommodate their religious beliefs. This will go a long way in assisting an employer in defending such necessary rules, in addition to demonstrating that the employer’s duty to accommodate has been fulfilled.

Andrew Lawson
Health and Safety/Human Rights Advisor, Learn Don’t Litigate
www.learndl.ca

Tags: BFOR, bona fide occupational requirement, discipline, discrimination, duty to accommodate, employment law, firing, Free speech, Freedom of religion, Friesen v. Fisher Bay Seafood and others, policies and procedures, preaching at work, religion, religion in the workplace, religious beliefs, termination, workplace rules

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 at 10:00 and is filed under Human Resources, Human Rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products or that seek personal legal advice. Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.




Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

  • Get Free Updates

    RSS and Email

  • 2012 Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference

    2011 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

    2010 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

  • Categories

    • Accessibility Standards
      • Integrated Accessibility Regulation
      • Standard for Customer Service
      • Standard for Employment
      • Standard for Information and Communications
      • Standard for the Built Environment
      • Standard for Transportation
    • Announcements
    • Conferences
    • Human Resources
      • Corporate Immigration
      • Employee Relations
      • Employment Standards
      • Health and Safety
      • HR Analytics
      • HRMS
      • Human Rights
      • Privacy and Security
      • Recruiting and Hiring
      • Training and Development
      • Union Relations
    • Internal Controls
      • Environmental Law
      • Finance and Accounting
      • IT, Privacy and Security
      • Not-for-Profit
    • Payroll
      • Benefits
      • Compensation
      • Source Deductions and Reporting
  • Recent Comments

      CommentLeslie D Foreman:
      I agree with the court decision. Granting a full 52 weeks leave for an adoptive...

      CommentDr. Mike Michael:
      While there are many factors associated with depression, a main cause is the...

      CommentAndrew Taillon:
      Thanks Chris. I would suggest that the confusion arises from the way damages were...



  • First Reference:
    @firstreference

    Yosie Saint-Cyr:
    @yosie23

    Adam Gorley:
    @agorley

  • Like us on Facebook!



  • Links

    • First Reference
    • HR eSource
    • HRinfodesk
    • HRtrack
    • Human Resources Advisor
    • PolicyPro
  • Blogroll

    • All About Information
    • Chambers on the Profession
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Governance & Risk Management Blog
    • Corporate Reporting to Stakeholders
    • Daniel A. Lublin Employment Law Blog
    • Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog
    • Employment & Human Rights Law in Canada
    • Human Right in the Workplace
    • International Corporate Governance
    • Leech Talks Risk
    • Marks on Governance
    • Osgoode Labour & Employment Law Society
    • SBH Lawyers blog
    • Slaw
    • Thoughts from a Management Lawyer
  • Post Archives

    • February 2012 (9)
    • January 2012 (26)
    • December 2011 (27)
    • November 2011 (24)
    • October 2011 (22)
    • September 2011 (34)
    • August 2011 (27)
    • July 2011 (25)
    • June 2011 (35)
    • May 2011 (29)
    • April 2011 (28)
    • March 2011 (27)
    • February 2011 (20)
    • January 2011 (22)
    • December 2010 (23)
    • November 2010 (23)
    • October 2010 (22)
    • September 2010 (24)
    • August 2010 (28)
    • July 2010 (26)
    • June 2010 (29)
    • May 2010 (32)
    • April 2010 (24)
    • March 2010 (22)
    • February 2010 (9)
    • January 2010 (11)
    • December 2009 (11)
    • November 2009 (14)
    • October 2009 (16)
    • September 2009 (11)
    • August 2009 (1)
  • Questions?

    Email us:
    editor[at]firstreference.com

Copyright © 2012 - First Reference | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Twitter | Facebook

WordPress theme designed by web design