Assignment 1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
George Brown College Canada *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
4011
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by BaronElement11795
Assignment #1
Employment & Human Rights Law (4011)
George Brown College
Submitted by: Syeda Umme Kulsum
ID:101321441
Question 1:
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) plays a critical role in upholding human rights by overseeing applications under the Human Rights Code. Respondents must complete the HRTO response form within 35 days of receiving an application.
The first question in the response form assesses the respondent's adherence to the Human Rights Code. It evaluates whether the respondent has a policy that aligns with the Code and if it was applied fairly and consistently. This helps the HRTO understand the organizational commitment to human rights principles.
The second question examines the accessibility and effectiveness of the respondent's complaint process. The HRTO ensures that individuals have the means to address discrimination concerns within the organization by scrutinizing the existence and quality of the complaint process to ensure that it respects the rights of the parties involved.
The third question seeks information on whether the applicant used the internal complaint process and whether the respondent was aware of the issues raised. This helps the HRTO understand the dynamics between the parties and whether internal mechanisms were exhausted before resorting to external adjudication.
The fourth question assesses the steps taken by the respondent to address the complaint and the overall satisfaction of the complainant with the outcome. This helps the HRTO evaluate the effectiveness of the internal resolution process and determine if the respondent acted appropriately in addressing the allegations of discrimination.
Together, these questions help the HRTO understand the context of the human rights dispute and provide an opportunity for potential resolution through mediation or other means. Respondents who answer these questions demonstrate their commitment to human rights principles and provide evidence supporting their position. The emphasis on internal processes and resolutions promotes efficiency and allows parties to resolve disputes without needing a formal hearing. In essence, the HRTO response form is a critical tool for effectively and efficiently resolving human rights applications. It contributes to the Tribunal's goal of fostering a fair and just society by addressing and remedying instances of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
Question 2:
In my opinion, the employer violated the Ontario Human Rights Code by refusing to hire George due
to his nose ring. Here are some reasons why:
The Code prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and other grounds. It also protects individuals from discrimination due to their appearance unless it is a legitimate requirement of the job.
The employer's dress code, which forbids displaying tattoos or body piercings, may create adverse effects based on sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, or disability. For example, some people may wear body piercings or tattoos to express their identity or cultural or religious beliefs.
The employer's dress code may also be based on stereotypical or sexist assumptions about how men and women should look or dress and may reinforce gender norms. For instance, the employer may prefer a particular appearance that aligns more with traditional views of masculinity or femininity.
The employer's dress code may not be necessary to fulfill a legitimate work-related purpose, such as health and safety, customer service, or professionalism. The employer would have to demonstrate that the dress code is rationally connected to the job's performance, was adopted in good faith, and that accommodating the employees affected would impose undue
hardship.
The employer's rejection of George's application based solely on his nose ring may also constitute harassment, which is a form of discrimination under the Code. Harassment is defined as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.
Therefore, in my opinion, the employer contravened the Code by discriminating against George based on his nose ring, and he may have a valid human rights complaint. However, this is just my opinion and not legal advice. George should consult a lawyer or a human rights expert before taking any action.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Question 3:
In my view, the employer violated the Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") by not hiring May due to her limited mobility in her arm. Here are some reasons why:
The Code prohibits discrimination in employment because of disability, among other grounds. Disability includes physical, mental, and learning disabilities, as well as perceived disabilities. May's limited mobility in her arm is a physical disability that is protected by the Code.
The employer's interview process may have been discriminatory towards May. It was brief and did not address her disability or her ability to perform the job. The employer may have made assumptions or stereotypes about May's disability, such as assuming that she would not be able to lift patients or perform other physically demanding tasks, without giving her a fair opportunity to demonstrate her skills and qualifications.
The employer may have also failed to meet their duty to accommodate May's disability, which is a critical requirement of the Code. The duty to accommodate means that employers must take steps to eliminate barriers and provide equal opportunities for people with disabilities unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The employer should have asked May if she needed any accommodations for the interview or the job and explored possible solutions that would allow her to work effectively and safely.
The employer's decision not to hire May based on her disability may have also violated her dignity and self-worth, which are fundamental values of the Code. The Code recognizes that every person in Ontario has the right to be free from discrimination and harassment, and to participate fully and equally in society. By rejecting May's application solely because of her disability, the employer may have created a negative and hostile environment for her.
Therefore, based on these reasons, I believe that the employer contravened the Code by discriminating against May based on her disability. May may have a valid human rights complaint against the employer. However, this is just my opinion and not legal advice. May should consult a lawyer or a human rights expert before taking any action.