Employment Discrimination Case Study

In human resources, there are a number of problems and difficulties one must deal with, from hiring-and-firing decisions, to understanding complex legal decisions. One aspect no employer wishes for is an allegation of employment discrimination. At times these allegations are laughable at best, but sometimes the complainants have a strong argument, and stronger legal rights. In such situations, the employer has failed to follow specific employment legislation. Two cases of discrimination were alleged, and settled, in the human rights tribunals of Nova Scotia and Alberta in 2009 and 2013 respectively. Both complainants allege, in some way, discrimination that violates the Human Rights Act of their province. The complainant in the first case
Robinson was denied LTD because the City had offered her the opportunity to train to drive the Light Rail Transit based on her seniority and disability, as there was less chance of diesel fumes affecting her. Although she would still come into contact with some chemicals, her doctor would change the scheduling of her medication, and he had cleared her to return to work. Ms. Robinson disagreed with him, and SunLife, the insurance company handling her LTD application, believing she was unable to. I believe this was the City of Edmonton offering Ms. Robinson reasonable accommodation. However, Ms. Robinson insisted her disability would not allow her to drive the Light Rail Transit, and subsequently felt as though she had no choice but to resign. In addition to her larger complaint of discrimination, she also appears to allege her supervisor neglected to file her LTD application in a timely manner in order to spite her, and that the City had not adequately attempted to accommodate her, and was forcing her to return to
Robinson, felt that she was being discriminated against because of her environmental urticaria, and filed a suit against the City of Edmonton, despite having resigned. The respondent, the City of Edmonton, responded by saying they had done their best to accommodate her, giving her options that were agreeable to her doctors, certainly not acts of discrimination. The tribunal ruled that the City of Edmonton had not violated the Alberta Human Rights Act, but perhaps could have been more transparent in their communications with Ms. Robinson. The tribunal stated their reasoning for ruling in favor of the City was the great lengths the City had gone to in order to try and accommodate the complainant, and the fact that Ms. Robinson had resigned without really conceding to the accommodation