This case is concerning an employee's request for alternate work arrangements to accommodate her breastfeeding provides useful insight into the extent to which employers must accommodate their employees in order to honour their human rights obligations. In March 2013, after a year of maternity leave, Ms. Flatt extended her leave on a without-pay basis until July of the same year. During the extended months of her maternity leave Ms. Flatt began negotiating a telework arrangement with her employer, Industry Canada that would accommodate her desire to continue breastfeeding. Flatt initially asked to work full-time from home. Her position with the company was largely administrative but did require regular field work and the company's policy clearly stated that, while employees were allowed to telework on occasion, or from offices closer to their homes, that teleworking was not permitted long-term. When this request was denied, Flatt sought a telework arrangement of working from home two days per week and having a modified work schedule the other three days in which she would take two 45-minute paid breaks from the office to breastfeed her baby at his daycare. Her employer was generally agreeable to the terms but took issue with the need to have her reach 37.5 hours of work (excluding lunch breaks and breastfeeding) and that Flatt desired this accommodation for the entirety of a year. The employer offered Flatt the options to work part time, continue her leave without pay until she had finished breastfeeding or to work from home one day per week. Ultimately Flatt and her employer were unable to come to an agreement to accommodate her breastfeeding schedule.

Question: Do you think this was discrimination based on sex or family status? Please explain your answer with reasoning in words. Question: Did Industry Canada fulfill its obligation to accommodate to the point of undue hardship? Explain with details in words.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Discrimination Based on Sex or Family Status Yes there is a strong argument that Ms Flatts situation could be considered discrimination based on both ... View the full answer