**Note: The listed provisions of the Yukon Human Rights Act (“the Act”) do not reflect the current legislation.

The Complainant alleged that she was denied employment as a cashier at a store owned and operated by the Respondent Company as a result of her physical disability. She had a back injury. She alleged that this was in contravention of the following sections of the Yukon Human Rights Act:

  1. Section 6(h), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability, and;
  2. Section 8(b), which prohibits discrimination in connection with any aspect of employment.

The Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication asked the following questions:

  1. Was the Complainant treated unfavourably on the basis of disability and in connection with any aspect of employment? If yes:
    1. Was the treatment based on reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment (as per section 9(b) of the Act), or;
    2. Other factors establishing reasonable cause for discrimination (as per section 9(d) of the Act).
  2. If discrimination is found, did the Respondent company have a duty to accommodate for the Complainant?

First, the Board found that the Complainant was treated unfavourably as a result of her disability. However, due to the nature of the merchandise in this store and requirements of a cashier, the treatment of the Complainant was based on reasonable requirements for employment. Indeed, cashiers were required to lift heavy objects and needed to take items out to the parking lot for customers. Cashiers would also have bend into carts and turn heavy boxes in order to find price tags.

Second, the Board found that the Respondent Company did not have the duty to accommodate the Complainant. The Complainant had no training as a cashier at the store and she couldn’t lift items as one of her job functions. Accommodating for her would have resulted in undue hardship for the Respondent company for the following reasons:

Cost:

  • Typically, movement to a cashier position was dependent on the need for a cashier at the time. As there was no need for cashiers at the time of this complaint, the Respondent company would have needed to displace other cashiers to hire the Complainant.
  • The Complainant had no training on the cashier’s till at that particular store and would require assistance from another employee.
  • The Complainant would require assistance to move or turn merchandise to read pricing codes.

Safety:

  • If hired, the Complainant would be in a position to injure herself further or injure a customer or other employee.

Business Efficiency

  • To schedule the Complainant, the manager would have had to reschedule staff.
  • The Complainant would have to continually request help from other employees, which could create friction.

Disruption to the Public

  • The Complainant would also inconvenience customers by expecting them to assist her in moving merchandise.

Therefore, the Board dismissed the complaint.

Download PDF file