A single mother and former residential support worker at Family Options Inc. has had her family status discrimination application dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).
The worker, V.A., claimed the company failed to accommodate her childcare needs and retaliated against her for requesting shift changes.
The Tribunal found that while she established a prima facie case of discrimination, Family Options Inc. provided a credible non-discriminatory explanation for their actions and made reasonable efforts to accommodate her.
V.A., employed by Family Options Inc., which provides housing and support services to adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities, had requested alternate shifts citing difficulty in obtaining childcare. She argued that the company’s refusal to accommodate her family status and subsequent reduction of her shifts amounted to discrimination and constructive dismissal.
The Tribunal highlighted that the duty to accommodate is a cooperative process. It noted that “the respondent at all times attempted to work with the applicant to achieve a schedule that accommodated the applicant, whether it was for the applicant’s childcare needs or simply for their stated preferences.”
Background and evidence
The case centered on incidents from August 2017 onwards. V.A. initially agreed to work certain shifts but later requested changes, citing lack of childcare.
On Aug. 9, 2017, she emailed the Service Coordinator, requesting to change her Saturday shift from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. to 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The Service Coordinator replied that the requested shift did not exist and accommodating her would disrupt other schedules.
V.A.’s subsequent requests for further changes were documented. An Aug. 29, 2017, email from the Service Coordinator detailed attempts to accommodate her: “I have attempted to accommodate you by putting you on 9-9 every Saturday and again you are not willing to do this. I have attempted to accommodate you with working every other weekend for the full weekend and you are not willing to do this.”
V.A. testified that she was able to work some evening shifts but found it challenging. Despite expressing preferences for certain schedules, the Tribunal noted that many of her requests appeared to be based on preference rather than need.
Tribunal’s findings
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of co-operation in the accommodation process. It stated that the respondent employer made good faith efforts to accommodate V.A. within the constraints of its service, which included the needs of vulnerable clients and funding limitations.
“The respondent did their ‘part’ by repeatedly accepting the applicant’s requests to transfer to other positions and made good faith efforts to determine how the applicant could be accommodated ‘without undue interference in the operation of the employer’s business,'” the Tribunal wrote.
However, V.A. did not do her “part” by accepting reasonable accommodations.
Allegations of reprisal
V.A. also alleged that Family Options Inc. retaliated against her for enforcing her rights under the Human Rights Code. She cited incidents such as being removed from the schedule due to an alleged expired Safe Management Group (SMG) certification and an email containing a reprimand being sent to over 230 contacts.
The Tribunal found no evidence of intentional reprisal. The Tribunal accepted the respondent’s explanation that the email incident was caused by a computer virus and not a deliberate act.
Additionally, the misunderstanding about the SMG certification did not amount to retaliation.
Conclusion
The Tribunal concluded that V.A. did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Family Options Inc. violated the Human Rights Code. The evidence showed that the company made reasonable attempts to accommodate her family status needs and that any loss of work was due to V.A.’s actions or misunderstandings, rather than discrimination or reprisal.
For more information, see Aguele v. Family Options Inc., 2024 HRTO 991 (CanLII).
