First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

feelings and self-respect

Maciel vs. Fashion Coiffures: pregnancy and employer’s continued obligation under the “Code”

The applicant alleged that she was terminated when on her first day of work she disclosed to her manager, Ms. Cinzia Conforti, that she was pregnant. In contrast, the respondents attributed her termination to the applicant’s alleged request to work part-time, although she had been newly hired for a full-time position.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Family status: Recent interpretation under the Human Rights Code

Requests for accommodation due to family status is becoming more common as societal norms continue to change. The leading case in Ontario that addresses the worker’s rights and the employer’s obligations on the ground of family status is arguably Devaney v. ZRV Holdings Limited.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Learn the latest! — Human Rights Tribunal finds discrimination in request for medical information

In Thompson v. 1552754 Ontario Inc., the applicant was employed as a counter person at the respondent’s coffee shop. The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability when her employer refused to allow her to return to work after a three day absence. The employer would not allow the applicant to return to work without providing it with specific medical clearance that she had returned to her “prior state” of health.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Invitation to harass?’

By now, most of us have heard about a controversial decision of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench in which Justice Robert Dewar sentenced a man found guilty of sexual assault to a two year conditional sentence, allowing him to remain free in the community and avoid any jail time.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tribunal awards $35,000 to fired pregnant employee

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal recently awarded a woman $35,000 after her employer fired her when she revealed on her first day of work that she was four months pregnant. (The award covered $20,000 in lost wages and benefits, and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.) In addition to the damage award, given the overwhelming number of women working for the employer, the tribunal ordered the company to implement and distribute a written policy on the accommodation of pregnancy to ensure future compliance.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,