Running Head: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 1

Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

Katie Hall, Nicole Tos, Shayna Quibell, Kristen Granger, Sam Mcmillan, Diane Dela Cruz

LWSO 335: Equality Issues

Professor McKay-Panos

December 5 2016
th
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 2

Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

For centuries, individuals with disabilities all across the globe have experienced

exclusion, stigmatization, neglect, and discrimination, among many other negative treatments.

Certain areas of discrimination, have been given more attention, and seen more progress than

others. Unfortunately, movements to prohibit discrimination based on ones ability inaugurated

much later than other human rights movements; due not only to a lack of awareness, but also

increased levels of stigmatization disability receives in comparison to other minority groups.

Disability as an acknowledged ground of discrimination has been one of the latest incorporations

to various human rights legislations (Pothier, 2010). Mercifully, within the last few decades in

Canada we have seen numerous developments and transformations within human rights law to

include people with disabilities. Perhaps most notably, in 1977 our Federal government passed

the Canadian Human Rights Act, which included the prohibition of discrimination based on

disability. Five years later, in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter both physical and mental

disability were added as enumerated grounds for discrimination (Council of Canadians with

Disabilities, 2014). This particular human rights development was significant; as it was the first

time this right was guaranteed in any countrys Constitution. However, what many do not know

is that these grounds were originally excluded, and it was not until substantial lobbying efforts

were expended, and disagreements were had that in the eleventh hour disability was included as

a ground in the non-discriminatory clause (Peters, 2004).

Despite initial advancements and improvements in various areas to provide and protect

the rights of individuals with disabilities in Canada, to this day many people continually face

tremendous hardship, and discriminatory practices. In 2010, nearly half of the complaints the

Canadian Human Rights Commision (CHRC) accepted were cited on the ground of disability,
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 3

making it the most frequently cited ground across Canada (Canadian Human Rights

Commission, 2011). Specifically within the area of employment disability continues to be the

most common ground involved in reasonable accommodation cases across Canada (Barnett,

Nicol, Walker, 2012). The sheer preponderance of claims, and cases centering on the ground of

disability is prospectively due to the large portion of Canadians living with visible, and invisible

disabilities. Statistics Canada completed a survey in 2012 showing that over 3.8 million

Canadians of working age identified themselves as disabled (Blinch, 2013). These rates will

continue to rise, due to a number of factors such as our ageing population. Thus, it is imperative

that greater, and more meticulous attention is paid to issues surrounding disability

discrimination, especially in the area of employment, due to the sheer number of Canadians

affected, and at risk of unjust treatment. The following brief will commence with an in depth

review of pertinent pieces of legislation regarding individuals with disabilities, as well as

programs and resource support currently available. Next a discussion of the day-to-day

experiences some individuals with disabilities face will ensure, with a particular focus on the

barriers, and difficulties faced in the area of employment. Finally, the topic of reasonable

accommodation will be covered, including the duty of employers to accommodate. To tie the

brief together points and facts from the case of Smith v. Fawcett Truck Stop will be summarized

and highlighted to coincide and complement our topic of discrimination on the ground of

disability, in the area of employment. In its entirety, this brief tackles the issue of disability

discrimination in the employment sector, highlighting specific employment barriers and issues,

as well as key equality and accommodation considerations we believe have at many times, been

ignored, and employers have failed to uphold.

Legislation
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 4

A number of pieces of legislation, both federally and provincially, are in place to protect

the rights and liberties of individuals with disabilities, particularly in the workplace. These

include, but are not limited to, the Canada-Alberta Labour Market Agreement for Persons with

Disabilities, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Alberta Employment Programs

The Alberta Government has many different programs available to assist people with

disabilities in finding and maintaining meaningful work. The main government program that

supports individuals with disabilities in Alberta is the Canada-Alberta Labour Market Agreement

for Persons with Disabilities (LMAPD). Under this, the Disability Related Employment Supports

Program (DRES) provides funding to individuals to help them overcome the plethora of barriers

and stigmas preventing their inclusion in the workplace (Government of Alberta, 2016). Other

programs laid out in the LMAPD include Work Foundations, Training for Work, and Persons

with Developmental Disabilities Employment Preparation and Placement Supports. All these

programs have the goal of helping individuals, as well as employers, find meaningful work for

people with disabilities (Government of Canada, 2016). Although the LMAPD also offers many

education and health services, this brief will only specifically examine the employment programs

available for individuals with disabilities.

The Canada-Alberta LMAPD was signed in March, 2003 and has developed, and

continually grown in many positive ways since. The 2013 Economic Action Plan aimed to

improve the LMAPD to increase employment prospects for individuals with disabilities, and

put stronger accountability mechanisms in place (Government of Alberta, 2015, p. 1).

Improvements will continue from 2014-2018, of which includes an Alberta Cost share with the
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 5

Canadian Federal Government of which up to an admirable $25.1 million will be allocated

specifically to be spent on employment programs for individuals with disabilities.

The first program under human services this brief will examine is the Disability Related

Employment Supports Program (DRES). This program provides individualized employment

and training supports specifically for individuals with disabilities in a number of ways

(Government of Alberta, 2015, p. 2). Supports include funding for post-secondary schooling

along with different training programs to help individuals enter the workforce in areas of specific

interest to them, and moreover supports continue to best ensure they maintain employment.

Individuals can also use DRES funding towards assistive technologies in their workplace, of

which can customize, and greatly enhance the workplace environment according to the needs of

the individual. These assistive technologies can include specialized computer software, job tutors

or coaches, and workplace modifications such as ramps, or specialized desk and mobility

equipment (Government of Alberta, 2015). It is however important to note that there are

specifications to qualify for DRES. Some of these specifications include that the individual must

be a Canadian Citizen and Alberta Resident, and must have documentation of a permanent or

chronic disability that provides a barrier to employment. These specifications, and criteria may

serve as problematic for some individuals, and in some fashion, pose as an additional barrier, and

form of discrimination, by requiring an individual to prove the nature and severity of their

disability.

The Work Foundations and Training for Work programs differ from DRES in a number

of ways. Mainly, these programs emphasize job-training skills and do not provide funding for

adaptive technologies. These programs are not only available to individuals with disabilities, but

are open to any Alberta resident needing assistance in finding employment, which is
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 6

praiseworthy in terms of inclusion, and non-discriminatory practices. Service offered by the

Work Foundations and Training for Work programs include: skills to enhance an individuals

ability to adapt to changing labour conditions, as well as skills to sustain employment

(Government of Alberta, 2009).

To conclude this section of the brief on Alberta Employment Programs, we would like to

point out as shown in figure 1, the sizably important role PDD Employment Preparation and

Placement Supports poses in employment services for individuals with disabilities in Alberta.

Similar to the other programs examined, PDD is fragmented in sections to help individuals learn

skills and training necessary for employment, as well as to place individuals in employment

areas that correspond with their interests, and abilities. In the 2014-2015 year, 60% of

individuals who completed the PDD Employment Supports Program in Alberta obtained and/or

maintained employment after (Government of Alberta, 2015).

Figure 1
Ministry Program 2014/ 2015
Expenditures

Human Disability Related Employment Supports $4, 942, 626

Services

Work Foundations $4, 765, 681

Training for Work $4, 188, 623

PDD Employment Preparation and Placement $30, 122, 019

Supports

Human Services Total $44, 018, 949

(Canada-Alberta Labour Market Agreement for Persons with Disabilities 2014/2015 Annual Report)
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

As noted prior, Canada was considered to have ground breaking actions when they

included individuals with disabilities into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereby

referred to as the Charter). Canada was among one of the first three countries in the world,
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 7

along with Spain and the United States, to enact laws that prohibit discrimination against

individuals with disabilities (Kanter, 2003). In Canada, this occurred in 1982 with the enactment

of the Constitution Act, however, this was not actually enforced until 1985, to allow the

government, and services time to align their practices with the nondiscrimination clause. Another

large advancement seen in Canada is that individuals with mental disabilities and addictions are

included in these rights, as compared to places such as Ethiopia where these individuals are

excluded (Kanter, 2003). However, upon examination, it can be challenging to know the extent

to which individuals with disabilities are included within the Charter. Further, we argue that

there still is not enough protection for individuals with disabilities within employment, under this

current legislation, nor does there exist enough pre-emptive parameters to counter the chances of

discrimination on the ground of disability.

The main goal of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in regards to individuals with

disabilities, is to protect them from the laws and actions of the government or government

agencies. This is upheld mainly by section 15(1) which states that there is equality before and

under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on

mental or physical disability (Canadian Charter, 1982, s 15(1)(b), hereby referenced as

Charter). Therefore, section 15(1) allows for individuals with disabilities in the employment

sector protection from being discriminated against based on both visible and invisible

disabilities. Employers within the government field would be required to allow equal opportunity

for individuals with disabilities in selection of jobs but also in support within the workplace, but

only to the extent of section 1. Section 1 states that the rights and freedoms outlined within the

Charter are set out in subject only to such reasonable limits (Charter). A challenge of such is

that these limits are determined on a case by case basis, by the ruling judge. Thus, there is no
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 8

standard or outline of what is considered to surpass the reasonable limit, making it more

challenging for individuals with disabilities to fully understand, access, and argue for their rights.

The Alberta Human Rights Act

Moreover, the main purpose of the Alberta Human Rights Act (Alberta Human Rights

Act, RSA 2000 c A 25.5, hereby referenced as AHRA) is to protect individuals from

discrimination, which can stem from the government, corporations, or other individuals.

Specifically in regards to individuals with disabilities, two main sections of the AHRA are in

place to protect them from discrimination in the workplace: section 7 and 8. Section 7(1) states

that employment or accommodation within the workplace cannot be denied based on either

mental or physical disability (AHRA, 2010). Further, section 7(3) outlines that employers must

provide reasonable accommodation to the point of undue hardship to accommodate individuals

with disabilities into the workplace (AHRA, 2010). Although, this section has the same

challenge as section 1 of the Charter, in regards to reasonable limits, as individuals do not know

the full extent of their rights to accommodation until they are determined by a judge in court,

which can be an expensive, time-consuming, and quite the intimidating experience. Section 8(1)

of the AHRA prohibits employers to circulate or make a requirement for employment, anything

that would limit individuals with disabilities in the opportunity of acquiring or maintaining

employment, specifically in regards to advertisements or in the application process

(AHRA). Another important aspect of the AHRA is the inclusion of definition for both a mental

and physical disability, found within section 44(h) and (l), respectively (AHRA). However, the

manner and language in which these disabilities are defined is both binding and degrading to the

individual. In regards to the definition of a mental disability, the word disorder is repeated

numerous times which gives a negative reflection, and connotation of disability, and shows that
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 9

stigmatization still largely subsists. It is absolutely imperative that the definitions of disability

are rewritten to remove the negative stigma that is still associated with individuals of varying

abilities, especially those with mental disabilities, before any real progress can ensue.

In regards to aspects of legislation for individuals with disabilities in employment, there

needs to be more thorough definitions and understanding within the law to allow for better use

and protection under the law from discrimination. Individuals with disabilities face enough

challenge and barriers to employment, that legislation should look to help individuals, not create

more misunderstanding. By rewording current definitions to be more inclusive, and to explicitly

define the extent employers should go to in terms of accommodation, this will allow more

individuals with disabilities the deserved opportunities to obtain, and retain employment.

Barriers

As explored in the previous section, much legislation exists to protect the disability

community from discrimination within the area of employment. This legislation, however, fails

to eliminate several barriers faced by individuals with disabilities who are trying to find and

maintain meaningful employment. The obvious barriers, such as the lack of physical accessibility

within the workplace and the need for accessible transportation, barely scratch the surface of the

issues. Deeply ingrained social attitudes regarding disability tend to be one of the most damaging

and prevalent barriers that individuals with disabilities experience in the employment sector.

These barriers include: adverse stigma, an overall lack of education within the workplace about

disability, and low personal self-esteem and advocacy skills. These barriers contribute to the

perpetual cycle of devaluation of people with disabilities in the workforce and within society as a

whole.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 10

Many employers do not understand what actual, true inclusion entails and generally do

not want to hire or promote a person with disability. Much of this stems from the erroneous idea

that it costs more to hire someone with a disability because there may subsist some sort of extra

risk or required accommodation (Wilson-Kovacs, Ryan, Haslam & Rabinovich, 2008, p. 706).

This assumption is false because people with and without disabilities require varying levels of

vocational support and accommodation from their employers. Shier, Graham & Jones (2009)

interviewed 70 individuals in Calgary and Regina with a range of disabilities and found that over

half of participants agreed that employer discrimination, labelling and negation of an

individuals human capital were the largest barriers they faced in the employment sector (p. 67).

Essentially, employers tend to label people with disabilities as incompetent or burdening,

thus it is assumed that because of a disability an individual is less productive or valuable within

the workforce than someone who is not disabled. The direct result of this attitude is the

occupational segregation of people with disabilities.

Occupational segregation is the distribution of people across and within occupations due

to a specific demographic characteristic that can impact an individual's earning potential (Maroto

& Pettinicchio, 2014, p. 77). People with disabilities who can find employment are over-

represented in blue collar jobs that provide little room for advancement and cause them to

become stuck in a cycle of under-employment. This cycle of under-employment, or the inability

to find work at all, ties in with the lack of personal self-esteem and knowledge of advocacy that

many people with disabilities experience. These personal barriers exist because, from the time

they are born, people with disabilities are all too often made to feel like they are broken and need

to be fixed, which are ideas perpetually promoted through societal practices. Individuals with

disabilities are indisputably socially and institutionally de-valued unfortunately. A sense of

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 11

internalized oppression, and the expectation that people with disabilities cannot find or maintain

any type of meaningful employment, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Reasonable Accommodation

Although scarcely admitted in the workplace, negative connotations are often associated

with, and towards individuals that have disabilities. Despite the fact that there exists such a vast

array of easily implemented options for accommodations, as well as protection against disability

discrimination offered in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the statistics of unemployed

individuals with disabilities is much higher than the statistics for individuals without. The

employment rate in Canada for individuals with disabilities aged 25-64 in 2011 was 49%, and a

mere 26% for those considered to have a severe disability; compared to a much higher

employment rate of 79% for Canadians without a disability (Turcotte, 2011). Many individuals

remain perplexed regarding this staggeringly pronounced, persistent gap of employment rates

between individuals with disabilities and without. In the past few decades in particular, there

have been noticeable efforts, including the enactment of various pieces of legislation such as the

Employment Equity Act to provide protection, and to decrease unemployment among individuals

with disabilities. However, progress in this area still remains slow-moving compared to other

rights movements. Efforts on part of employers to accommodate their employees with

disabilities are sufficiently lacking, as is made apparent by the sheer number of complaints cited

in the area of employment, noting a dearth of effort on the part of an employer to accommodate

for the needs of their employees, and their disabilities (Canadian Human Rights Commission,

2011).

From the standpoint of an employer, there are various reasons, and justifications made

regarding the aversions which appear to systemically exist in employing individuals with
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 12

disabilities. By far one of the biggest barriers identified, which fosters the skyrocketing

unemployment rates is the attitudes of employers attitudes, and the erroneous beliefs and

viewpoints many hold regarding the ability of this group of individuals, as well as

misconceptions about accommodations required for some people with disabilities (National

People with Disabilities and Carer Council, 2009).

The main purpose of any business is to provide valuable product and service to its

customers in an efficient and meaningful way, all the while creating as much profit for the

business at the lowest possible cost, with the highest productivity level. Many employers may

adopt or internalize fears of hiring individuals based on negative stereotypes, and discriminatory

statements surrounding disability perpetuated in and by society. However, conversely, there can,

and does exist instances where persons with disabilities do lack the knowledge, skills and

abilities required for certain jobs. This issue is more predominantly seen regarding positions in

more professional occupations of which require university degrees, or within manufacturing

occupations such as construction, agriculture and mining fields (Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, Brooks,

n.d.) There are times when an apparent lack of qualification is not a situation built upon

discrimination, or faulty stereotypical beliefs, but a situation of justifiable undue hardship on the

employer or business if they were to hire certain persons with disabilities. Undue hardship is to

be tackled on a case-to-case basis, and when determining it there are a few factors that must be

taken into consideration. These factors include financial burden, collective agreements,

health/safety concerns and interchangeability of workplace and facilities. (The National

Network, n.d.) However, employees must have sufficient, documented and reasonable evidence

to claim undue hardship. (Government of Canada, 2011) There is also opportunity for employers
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 13

to claim bona-fide occupational requirement if there are discriminatory claims made against

them in the court of law (Alberta Human Rights Commision, 2009).

Another issue that could be a factor towards the high unemployment rate is the fact that

workplaces, and employers may be unaware of certain tax benefits to hiring individuals with

disabilities, and may follow the erroneous belief that employing individuals with disabilities is

costly. Businesses are able to deduct the costs of making their facilities more accessible for

disabled workers, such as the installation of ramps. Businesses can also qualify for disabled

access credit, barrier removal deduction and work opportunity credits (IRS, 2016). There are also

many organizations and disability employment agencies that are available which aim to increase

inclusion in the community amongst individuals with disabilities. The costs of these

organizations often impose very little financial burden for the employees, and moreover, are

highly beneficial for all stakeholders. For example, in Alberta, Inclusion Alberta, Rotary, and

Edmonton PDD help to provide additional training and resources for persons with disabilities in

the workplace. The issue remains that agencies and their employers often have a lack of

awareness and education of the assistances and organizations out there to help in their

accommodation efforts. Thus, a call for greater education on part of employers, and more

stringent efforts to accommodate any and all employees with disabilities, truly to the point of

undue hardship is needed on a larger scale than currently exists.

An Underdog Victory? An Example of Justice? Legislation in Action?

The aforementioned resources are in place to ensure discrimination is not tolerated in

Canadian society, and that when it unfortunately does occur, individuals have the adequate tools

to achieve justice. An example of a victory over discrimination can be seen in the case of Smith

v. Fawcett Truck Stop.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 14

The complainant, Leona Smith, is a 47 year old cashier who has worked at Fawcett Truck

stop, the respondent, for about 5 years [1]. Since 1989, Smith has been living with osteoarthritis,

as well as thoracic muscle strain, which she sustained following an accident at her former

workplace [9]. Upon the advice of her physician, Smith chose an occupation with certain work

restrictions, a cashier in this instance, which would not aggravate her condition. The proprietor

of the truck stop decided to transfer his ownership to a man named Douglas Lee [1]. Before this

shift in control, Smiths condition was accommodated in a variety of ways. When is asked to

stock shelves, she was allowed to do so at a reduced rate [10]. Smith is also allowed to alternate

tasks throughout the day as to ensure she does not over exert particular muscles.

One year after assuming ownership of the truck stop, Mr. Lee unilaterally amended

Smiths cashier duties to include maid services [8]. These extra duties accounted for 2-4 hours of

her 8 hour work day, and included tasks such as making beds, doing laundry, and using the

incinerator [8]. Smith was apprehensive of the duties being asked of her, but decided to try one

shift to see if she could complete it without making her symptoms worse. Upon completing the

first amended shift, Smith experienced significant pain, and immediately saw her doctor [11].

Her physician, Dr. Newman, assessed her condition and wrote a note explaining that Smith has a

chronic back injury, and listed activities which she should not perform to avoid exacerbating her

condition further [12]. These activities included lifting, pushing, pulling, and having her arms

elevated for extended periods of time [12]. A couple days later, Smith attempts to discuss her and

Dr. Newmans concerns with Mr. Lee, however he does not want to listen to her complaints, and

insists she perform the duties just as he expects everyone to do [13]. Following this unsuccessful

meeting, Smith revisits Dr. Newman who writes another note explicitly stating Leona [Smith]

has a medical condition that is aggravated by housekeeping chores which she should avoid [14].
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 15

Upon presenting the second letter, Mr. Lee still refuses to alter or make accommodations to

Smiths duties. In her desperation, Smith even offers to receive reduced pay in order for someone

else to complete the shift [14]. Mr. Lee declines her offer. A few days following this meeting,

Mr. Lee requests Smith come to his office. Mr. Lee gives Smith a letter stating the following

[15]:

The purpose of this letter is to formally notify you, that in regards to the medical notices I
received from your Doctor, it clearly states that you cannot perform the adjusted duties of
a cashier. I have no choice but to request that you take a leave of absence for three (3)
months. At this time, you can try and get your medical condition healed, and return with a
medical notice from your Doctor stating that you can complete the duties as a cashier.
For safety reasons, I cannot, with a clear conscience accept that you can physically
complete your duties without the fear that you could seriously injure yourself. If you are
not able to get your medical condition healed, I will have no choice but to ask you to leave
the employment of the Fawcett Husky. You are a valuable employee and I do not wish for
your employment to terminate. With time, maybe your medical condition will improve to
the point that you can continue your employment here.
I wish you success in your future endeavours.

This notice is comprised of blatant discrimination and ignorance on the part of Mr. Lee.

Assuming that a leave of absence for three months will somehow cure her chronic ailments is

more than unreasonable [16]. Due to the condition of being healed to be able to be allowed back

at work, Mr. Lee is in affect terminating Smiths employment based on her physical disability. In

addition to Mr. Lees ignorance and uncompromising attitude, the letter caused Smith to feel

demeaned and humiliated since it claims she is medically unfit to perform a job which she has

been doing for five years, and she knows she is not able to improve her condition in the time

allotted [17]. Fortunately for Smith, the Alberta Human Rights Commission, as described earlier,

is in place precisely to achieve justice in situations of discrimination such as this.

Smith filed a human rights complaint on the grounds of discrimination based on physical

disability in the area of employment practices [3]. When assessing Smiths complaint, the panel

looks at three main issues; does Mr. Lee violate section 7 of the Human Rights Act; do his
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 16

actions meet the legal test requirements of a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement(BFOR); and

if the first is true, what remedy is appropriate for Smith? In terms of whether discrimination

occurred, the panel decides that osteoarthritis is clearly a physical disability under the Act, Mr.

Lee unfairly ignored the medical notes from Smiths doctor, and the notice Mr. Lee gave Smith

constitutes prima facie discrimination [28-32]. Mr. Lee uses BFOR as a defence, however he is

unsuccessful. Mr. Lees decision to amend the duties is made without consulting Smith, and the

panel finds that the intimidating manner of the suspension/termination demonstrates malice

[36]. There is also no evidence of reasonable accommodation, or even an attempt thereof, since

the modified duties were considered final and the medical leave deadline is impossible for Smith

to achieve [37]. Due to these factors, the court establishes that Mr. Lee did not accommodate to

the point of undue hardship, and as a result his defence of BFOR is not accepted. Due to the

validity of Smiths discrimination claim and the unfounded defence of BFOR, the panel must

now address the issue of compensation. The panel elects to award Smith $7500 in general

damages because of the damage to her self-respect and dignity caused by the discrimination [42].

They also determine that Smith receive about $1180 for her lost wages [14 in Decision on Lost

Wages at bottom].

This victory over discrimination shows how effective the current legislation can be in

achieving justice. However, there are still many individuals who are unaware of their rights to

protection from discrimination so raising awareness of these resources is paramount in societys

effort to achieve equality.

Conclusion

The case of Leona Smith vs. Fawcett Truck Stop is an explicit example of individuals

with disabilities being discriminated against in the area of employment. Through the LMAPD
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 17

Act, and the Alberta Government, actions have been taken to introduce programs to better assist

people with disabilities in finding and maintaining meaningful work (Government of Alberta,

2015). As well, section 15 (1) of the Canadian Charter and the Alberta Human Rights Act both

work to protect individuals with disabilities rights and minimize the prevalence of discrimination

in the workplace (Charter). Legislation, and relevant programs have been improved in the past

few years, yet still many barriers unfortunately exist. These barriers include issues of physical

accessibility, but also go much deeper to include the subsistence of explicit discrimination, and

marginalization tactics from societal members. Oftentimes, employers are not familiar with the

definition of inclusion in the workplace, which can result not only in creating low self-esteem for

many individuals, but prevent individuals from knowing, and feeling comfortable and supported

enough to advocate, and speak up regarding their needs, and rights. This being said, there are

many means of accommodation available, and promoted for employers to explore, and utilize to

support their employees, yet the issue remains of whether or not such accommodations are

realized and put into practice. Conversely, the BFOR is in place to help assist the employers

rights when hiring and employing individuals with disabilities, as some means of

accommodation very well could place undue hardship on businesses and employers.

To conclude the brief, it is important to recognize that individuals with disabilities are

still a large minority seen in the area of employment. While programs and legislation are in place

to prevent discriminatory practices, it is by no means an easy issue to fix. Equality for people

with disabilities in the workplace, as well as in practically every sector of society is a constant,

ongoing issue and concern.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 18

References

Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000 c A 25.5

Alberta Human Rights Commission. (2009). Bona fide occupational requirements. Retrieved

from

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/employment/employer_info/employment_contract/bfo

r.asp

Alberta Human Rights Commision. (2010). Duty to accommodate: Interpretive bulletin.

Retrieved from http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Bull_DutytoAccom_web.pdf

Barnett, L., Nicol, J., & Walker, J. (2012). An examination of the duty to accommodate in the

canadian human rights commission. Retrieved from

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2012-01-e.pdf

Blinch, M. (2013). 12 facts and figures about having a disability in canada. Retrieved from

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/by-the-numbers-international-day-of-persons-with-

disabilities

The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11

Canadian Human Rights Commission. (2011). 2010 Annual Report. Retrieved from

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/eng/search/node/disability

Council of Canadians with Disabilities. (2014). Convention on the rights of persons with

disabilities: First report of Canada. Retrieved from

http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/international/un/canada/crpd-first-report

Government of Canada. (2011). Duty to accommodate: A general process for managers.

Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/ve/dee/dorf-eng.asp

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 19

Government of Alberta. (2015). Canada-Alberta Labour Market Agreement for Persons with

Disabilities 2014/2015 Annual Report. Retrieved from

http://www.humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/canada-alberta-lma-pwd-annual-report-

2014-15.pdf

Government of Alberta. (2009). Employment and training programs and services. Retrieved

from http://www.humanservices.alberta.ca/AWonline/ETS/4327.html

IRS. (2016). Tax benefits for businesses who have employees with disabilities. Retrieved from

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tax-benefits-for-businesses-

who-have-employees-with-disabilities

Kanter, A. S. (2003). The globalization of disability rights law. Syracuse Journal of International

Law and Commerce; Summer, 30(2).

Lengnick-Hall, M. L. G., Philip M. B., Adrienne A.R. (n.d.) Why employers dont hire people

with disabilities: A survey of the literature.dc Retrieved from

http://www.cprf.org/studies/why-employers-dont-hire-people-with-disabilities-a-survey-of-

the-literature/

Maroto, M., & Pettinicchio, D. (2014). Disability, structural inequality, and work: The influence

of occupational segregation on earnings for people with different disabilities. Research in

Social Stratification and Mobility, 36, 76-92. doi:10.1016/ j.rssm.2014.08.002

National Network. (2016). What is considered undue hardship for a reasonable

accommodation? Retrieved from https://adata.org/faq/what-considered-undue-hardship-

reasonable-accommodation
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 20

National People with Disabilities and Carer Council. (2009). Shut out: Experience of people with

disabilities and their families in australia. Retrieved from

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/nds_report.pdf

Peters, Y. (2004). Twenty years of litigating for disability equality rights: Has it made a

difference? Retrieved from http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/promoting/20years

Pothier, D. (2010). Tackling disability discrimination at work: Toward a systemic approach.

McGill Journal of Law and Health, 4(1). Retrieved from http://mjlh.mcgill.ca/pdfs/vol4-

1/Pothier.pdf

Shier, M., Graham, J. R., & Jones, M. E. (2009). Barriers to employment as experienced by

disabled people: A qualitative analysis in Calgary and Regina, Canada. Disability &

Society, 24(1), 63-75. doi:10.1080/09687590802535485

Smith v. Fawcett Truck Stop, 2005 AHRC 9, 2005 AHRC 9 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fl0b9>,

retrieved on 2016-11-30

Turcotte, Martin. (2011). Persons with disabilities and employment. Retrieved from

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2014001/article/14115-eng.htm

Wilson-Kavocs, D., Ryan, M. K., Haslam, A., & Rabinovich, A. (2008). Just because you can

get a wheelchair in the building doesn't necessarily mean that you can still participate:

Barriers to the career advancement of disabled professionals. Disability & Society, 23(7),

705-717. doi:10.1080/09687590802469198