Human Rights Tribunals Of Alberta
The case relates to Human rights in relation to employment. Parties within the case were Kathalin Horvath who was the complainant, Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and a respondent who was the Rocky View School Division No. 41. Horvath developed an injury during work. Following injuries, she received both treatment and benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). However, her employment in the Rocky View School Division was terminated, a decision that she associated with the disability she developed after the injury. In my discussion, I will address whether the case is of prima facie or discrimination, whether the employer had a duty of accommodating Horvath and if so, evaluate if the duty was fulfilled the point of undue hardship. Finally, I will issue my personal opinion, regarding whether such case holds for employers.
Horvath had a disability. The fact that she was not capable of executing her caretaker duties as she used before, indicated that she had developed disability from the injury. If she were able, to recommendations would have been provided by the physicians for lighter or modified jobs. Disability is an inability to deliver what is expected within her current situation, and she was able before.
This is a case of discrimination. In the case of disability at the workplace, discrimination relating to disability occurs where an employee is stopped from working or laid off as a result of the disability. In such a situation, the employee does not consider alternate duties that can be offered to the affected employee. This is the case here. Kathalin developed a disability in the line of duty. The employer is pretty sure that she cannot resume her normal duties, from the right-hand relocation, and recommendations from the WCB physicians. However, the employer holds that she must resume her normal duties, despite the availability of lighter and alternate jobs within her capability. Again, she was not dismissed at the right time, considering that the caretakers’ lay off time had expired.
The employer had the duty of accommodating Horvath. This is based on the fact that she developed the disability in the line of duty. Besides, she had been a good employee, having received praises and positive reviews from her managers. The employer did not fulfill the duty of accommodating Horvath up to the point of undue hardship. It is true that Horvath had developed a disability, and she could not resume her normal caretake duties. However, she had the capability of handling lighter duties. The same recommendation had been made by physicians and WCB, to accommodate her but for modified duties. The employer argued that there were not modified jobs, while in reality, they were in existence, and fired her (Zimmer & Sullivan, 2017).
In my opinion, this case still holds for employers. Many employers focus on maximizing their returns, focusing less on the health and status of their employees. Key reasons as to why employers fail to fulfill the duty of accommodating employees are to increase productivity and avoid unnecessary costs associated with the employee’s disabilities.
In conclusion, what the employer did to Horvath was unethical. The employers should be considerate about their employees and take all possible actions to accommodate them. Dismissing employees under grounds of disabilities developed in the line of duty hurts them. Horvath lost employment, source of income as well as self-respect due to employment discrimination based on disability. It is good to focus on the welfare of the employees and accommodate adequately, instead of focusing on profit maximization, which is a weakness with most of the employees.
References
Horvath v. Rocky View School Division No. 41, 2015 AHRC 5
Zimmer, M. J., & Sullivan, C. A. (2017). Cases and materials on employment discrimination. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.