I. Case study: Human rights and employment (12 marks) Read the case study below
ID: 358553 • Letter: I
Question
I. Case study: Human rights and employment (12 marks)
Read the case study below and review pages 225-226 in your textbook. Once you have completed the readings, follow the directions to complete the question.
Amanda was employed full-time for five years as a sales clerk by Shop 'n' Save department store. Occasionally she was required to work on Friday evenings and Saturdays. Amanda, who had never had any strong religious beliefs, married the young son of a devout family. After her marriage, Amanda adopted her husband's religion, which prohibited her from working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. She then informed her employer that she would no longer be able to work during these times. The store manager advised her that Saturday work was a prerequisite for a full-time position and offered her a part-time position as an alternative. Amanda accepted the position, which reduced her hours and thus her salary by 30 percent. She subsequently filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
Questions
Find a Supreme Court of Canada decision that deals with Amanda’s issues and answer the following question,
and moving heavy parcels or equipment, if the person's handicap would prevent him or he from performing the work. Apart from these limitations, at Common Law, an employer is nor- mally free to select the person that the employer believes to be best suited for the position. Human rights laws at both the federal and provincial levels require an employer to maintain a discrimination-free work environment. These laws require employers to control discrimina- tion by employees against other employees in the firm An employee was the subject of racial harassment by other employees and complained to the employer. The employer did not investigate the matter, and the harassment con- tinued until the employee lodged a formal complaint under the provincial human rights legislation. The human rights tribunal held the employer lable for the employees racially discriminating remarks because the employer had failed to investigate the complaint and stop the discrimination Federal human rights legislation and the legislation in a number of provinces prohibie recond. loyment. A serious or violent crime. employers from refusing to employ or continue to employ a person with a criminal at the crime is not related to a persons emp edplie th a lengthy prison sentence, however, would probably entile she employer t arge the employee. Less serious offenses unrelated to employment with short jail nerms d probably require the employer to grant the employee a leave of absence to serve the minor sentence CASE L A W s discriminated against The Ontaro Court of Appeal held that the employer and awarded long service ce employee was employed as a wrongful dismissat; he wa vears. His record was good during under the provincial human rights legislation an for 23 u he was then charged with possession convicted of the offense. He was ercloyer dismissed the employee as a result tion. The employee sued for had wrongfully dismissed the employee the employee 10 months pay as damegos rinoad to four months in j his criminal conviction Lay Cerda Ltd. 1 itute discrimisstion under fet act or code. For example, employers are not permitted to pay fate than male employees, where Employers must also avoid work practices that wowild consitae a lesser wage both employees are performing substancially the same work nbliged to climinate bora fiade or legitimase work requiscmenes of a job obliged teoExplanation / Answer
Amanda was employed full-time for five years as a sales clerk by Shop 'n' Save department store. Occasionally she was required to work on Friday evenings and Saturdays but after her marriage, she adopted her husband's religion which prohibited her from working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. The store manager advised her that Saturday work was a prerequisite for a full-time position and offered her a part-time position as an alternative.
Since the employer's workplace policies interfered with Amanda's religious practices, the employer made a reasonable change in workplace rules/policy which allowed her to engage in her religious practice without conflicting her work obligations.
The employer, according to the law, provided Amanda with a religious accommodation and since it imposed an "undue hardship" on the employer's business, offered her a part-time position as an alternative which she accepted. Thus, employer tried in good faith to resolve Amanda's religious conflict and find an appropriate accommodation.
However, since the capacity in which Amanda worked for her employer ensures that she be paid according to the number of hours she worked in the department store, the employer was not obligated to pay her the full-time salary. The salary paid to Amanda during her full time work was calculated according to the number of hours she worked over the week (and includes her work over the weekend/overtime). Since she accepted to work part-time, her new salary was calculated according to the reduced number of hours.
Hence, the employer is not obligated to pay her new salary (part-time work) at par with her previous position (full-time work) which is calculated according to the total number of hours being put in the job (including work over weekends and overtime).