1 . Do you think that the employer was discriminating? Select points from case to support your answer.
2 .Do you agree with the decision? Can you think of any other solution.
?
CASE IN POINT Is Ontario Developing Its Own Test for Establishing Family Status Discrimination? Misetich v Value Village Stores Inc, 2016 HRTO 1229 Facts tribunal went on to critique the Johnstone test, stating that The employee, Misetich, refused an offer of modified work it inappropriately raises the bar in establishing a prime face to accommodate a repetitive strain injury because, she case of discrimination based on family status compared was argued, the shift schedule for the offered role interfered other protected grounds. It is the only ground that requires with her ability to care for her elderly mother. The employer engagement of a legal obligation-a particularly difficult ter responded by requesting information reflective of the four- to apply in the context of eldercare. The tribunal also took part Johnstone test: for example, that she was her parent's issue with the requirement to exhaust self-accommodation primary caregiver and that she had taken all reasonable before discrimination can be proven as this "conflated the steps to self-accommodate (e.g., by exploring options to hire test for discrimination and accommodation." someone to help with her mother while she was at work). Instead, the tribunal held that to prove discrimination After Misetich failed to provide the information requested. based on family status, the applicant must show that . despite multiple attempts, she was terminated. She then workplace rule in question results in a "real disadvantages filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal, alleging the parent-child relationship and the responsibilities fra low discrimination based on family status. from that relationship, and/or to the employee's won lem phasis added). Assessing that impact requires a conrad analysis that may include consideration of the other support Relevant Issue available to the applicant. However, the tribunal stried to Whether the employer's actions constituted discrimination is not the same as self-accommodation, as accommolater based on family status. "is not something that falls solely to the applicant" Cra discrimination is proven, the onus shifts to the emptyers Decision establish undue hardship, and this is where an appland failure to cooperate in the accommodation process road The tribunal rejected the applicant's claim due to her failure ing providing sufficient information and working with the to provide her employer with evidence of her eldercare responsibilities. However, in rendering its decision, the employer in identifying possible solutions to read : it family or work conflict, is considered.CASE IN POINT Is Ontario Developing Its Own Test for Establishing Family Status Discrimination? Misetich v Value Village Stores Inc, 2016 HRTO 1229 Facts tribunal went on to critique the Johnstone test, stating that The employee, Misetich, refused an offer of modified work it inappropriately raises the bar in establishing a prime face to accommodate a repetitive strain injury because, she case of discrimination based on family status compared was argued, the shift schedule for the offered role interfered other protected grounds. It is the only ground that requires with her ability to care for her elderly mother. The employer engagement of a legal obligation-a particularly difficult ter responded by requesting information reflective of the four- to apply in the context of eldercare. The tribunal also took part Johnstone test: for example, that she was her parent's issue with the requirement to exhaust self-accommodation primary caregiver and that she had taken all reasonable before discrimination can be proven as this "conflated the steps to self-accommodate (e.g., by exploring options to hire test for discrimination and accommodation." someone to help with her mother while she was at work). Instead, the tribunal held that to prove discrimination After Misetich failed to provide the information requested. based on family status, the applicant must show that . despite multiple attempts, she was terminated. She then workplace rule in question results in a "real disadvantages filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal, alleging the parent-child relationship and the responsibilities fra low discrimination based on family status. from that relationship, and/or to the employee's won lem phasis added). Assessing that impact requires a conrad analysis that may include consideration of the other support Relevant Issue available to the applicant. However, the tribunal stried to Whether the employer's actions constituted discrimination is not the same as self-accommodation, as accommolater based on family status. "is not something that falls solely to the applicant" Cra discrimination is proven, the onus shifts to the emptyers Decision establish undue hardship, and this is where an appland failure to cooperate in the accommodation process road The tribunal rejected the applicant's claim due to her failure ing providing sufficient information and working with the to provide her employer with evidence of her eldercare responsibilities. However, in rendering its decision, the employer in identifying possible solutions to read : it family or work conflict, is considered
