Legal Obligations In Workplace Discrimination And Harassment Essay.

Analyze the case by answering the following questions:

1.Under which jurisdiction does the nursery fall?  Did the nursery owner, Mr. Carmelo violate the Human Rights Act?   If so, in what way?  Use supportive details from the case as well as your textbook and/or the Chapter 4 – Legal Requirements and Managing Diversity power points when explaining your answer.

2.When Neha first became uncomfortable with the nursery owner's behaviour, what reasons would she have for not saying something to him? Discuss a minimum of 3 reasons using supportive details from the case study.

3.Under the circumstances as outlined in the case study, is Neha under any legal obligation to say anything to the nursery owner in order for him to know that his actions might be considered a violation of the Human Rights Act.   Use supportive details from the course content including the definition from the textbook, and a minimum 2 examples from the textbook that would fall under this part of the Code to explain your answer.

4.Is Neha’s termination (being fired from her job) a factor when determining if her rights were violated?  Use supportive details from the course content including from the textbook to explain your answer.

Case Study 1: Human Rights Violations in TCRA Jurisdiction Nursery

The jurisdiction under which the nursery falls is TCRA jurisdiction. The nursery owner did violate the Human Rights Act in numerous ways. Firstly he started behaving in an awkward manner, he used to put his hands on her shoulder, hips and places which made Neha very uncomfortable, this way he violated the Human Rights Act because behaving with an employee which makes him uncomfortable. Secondly he started sharing his personal problems with Neha, in which she was not at all interested. Here he violated the law because sharing personal problems with an employee at workplace is illegal or ethically wrong (Howard-Hassmann, 2018). After that he once tried to create physical intimacy with her, here Neha backed out and clearly stated that she had a partner already and she was not interested in any other relationship other that professional with Mr. Carmelo. Even after she backed out and made things clear to him, Carmelo invited her at his apartment for making physical intimacy with her, when she refused to go to his apartment, he fired her. This was completely against the Human Rights Act because according to the law it is illegal to fore physical contact on an employee and if the employee refuses to it, under no grounds he can be terminated.

When Neha had first become uncomfortable with the nursery owner’s behavior but she could not tell it to him because he was the owner of the nursery and her boss as well, hence she did not have the courage to tell him because she might have got fired or a mess might have been created by the owner saying that she had approached to him first. Secondly when she first backed out she expected him to understand and stop continuing with his deeds, but he continued with that.

Under various circumstances as outlined in the provided case study, she is under few legal obligations with the support of which she can complain against the nursery owner and his deeds. As an employee she has a right to have a workplace that is free from any kind of discrimination and sexual harassment (Banks, 2016). The employer is usually responsible and has a duty of care for ensuring her wellbeing a work and health. Implementation and enforcement of various policies on harassment would help in employees to know what must be done when they face such issues. In case of sexual harassment, the nursery owner can be found vicariously liable, he might be found accountable for his actions.

Case Study 2: Race Discrimination in Vehicle Wash Operations

Termination of Neha was a factor when determining because her rights were completely violated, she was not provided with a free and comfortable environment in her workplace, she was also harassed and he tried to make physical contact with her. She was not provided with good behavior at her workplace and the owner took advantage of his post for harassing Neha.

Yes, if this case study was involved with a male employee it would still be a violation of Human Rights Code because according to that code, no employee must be harassed on any ground in a workplace. If the case study involved a male employee and a female boss, it would be violation as well because the case would have been same until the male employee would have agreed for creating a physical intimacy with the boss. If the case involved a female employee and a female boss it would be violation as well, just because the gender is equal does not mean that it changes the level of harassment. Harassment is treated equally irrespective of the gender of a person.

Their jurisdiction under which the business of car wash fall is Vehicle Wash Operations. Discrimination can be defined as a specific action or a particular decision which results in negative or an unfair treatment towards an individual or a specific group (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2019). Discrimination can be done on several grounds like race, age, sex, religion and many more. Some sorts of discrimination are considered as illegal under the provincial and federal human rights law. In the case study of Simon, he had been discriminated on the ground of race. Simon is a black Canadian; belonging to this race he had faced numerous problems in looking for a weekend job. At last when he got a chance to appear for a job at a car washing company, he was discriminated on regular basis.

The shift manager who was responsible for providing Simon with training did not pay proper attention. The co-workers who work with Simon do not consider him as an employee and does not even communicate with him. When Simon asked questions to they did not help him out on how to do the work or use the equipments. There had been an incident when specific equipment was heated to excess amount and it broke down. This was caused due to some issues in the system or due to an employee’s negligence but the owner of the company blamed the incident completely on Simon and he was fired. These incidents provide valid evidence on the fact that Simon was discriminated on the basis of his race.

Case Study 3: Gender and Disability Discrimination at a Nursing Home

The shift manager of Simon did not have any justifiable reason to terminate Simon from his job. It is very common that law does not support the termination of an employee on the basis of his color, cast, or creed. The protection is not just limited to the time of termination, it also includes the refusal to hire various potential employees on the basis of their race, which had occurred in the case study of Simon (Adams, 2016). Canada follows a strict set of rules and regulations on human rights law and systems that addresses various types of discrimination in workplace (Hick, Halpin & Hoskins, 2016). This discrimination can take place on an institutional or a systematic level from daily rules.

The main purpose of Canadian Human Rights Commission is to ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act works for the benefit of all Canadians. The Canadian Human Rights Act is to provide effect to a principle, the principle is “all individuals should have an equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they wanted to have their needs accommodated consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society” (Roth, 2018). This act protects countrymen under discriminatory practices that tend to hinder the principle. This commission consists of three main aspects. The aspects are as follows

• To provide timely and effective means for resolving individual complaints: Simon can complain against the organization and he must be provided with proper importance during solving the issues.
• To promote knowledge on human rights in Canada along with encouraging people in following various principles of equality: The organization must be provided the knowledge regarding the principles of Canadian Human Rights Act and the penalties provided to organizations on the grounds of racial discrimination. Educating people on the principles would prevent people to judge people based on their race (Lehrer, 2015).
• To help in reducing barriers to equality in employment and access to services: This factor would help the organization in preventing these types of practices. The barrier that has been created in the case study of Simon includes communication barrier. This barrier has been produced due to the discrimination based on which Simon was judged. He was not allowed to learn the job properly and communicate with others

Discrimination of employees on any grounds is considered illegal. Various federal contractors as well as subcontractors should undertake some affirmative actions in order to guarantee equal employment opportunity irrespective of these factors. Discrimination prevents a workplace to provide an employee with equal benefits and facilities (Selby, Barras & Beaman, 2018). According to the case study of Simon, the way he was treated by the shift manager and his co-workers had made him very uncomfortable in the workplace. The environment created was very uncomfortable and ugly. The way his co-workers bullied him had a sense of ignorance and injustice. This proves that they could never accept Simon as an employee and they have never wanted him to work with them. According to various researches, an employment policy or a specific practice which applies to everyone, irrespective of color or race can be considered as illegal in case it creates a negative impact on the employees or the employment of people of a specific color or race (Failler, 2018). In the provided case study Simon, being black in race was discriminated and judged in workplace, similarly if an organization does not hire employees who are dark would be unlawful and would have a negative impact on the employment of Canadian countrymen.

Preventing Workplace Discrimination and Harassment

The environment created due to the behavior of shift manager, owner and co- workers in the organization had made it uncomfortable for everyone especially Simon, it must have been clear to all that the employees must not be discriminated on the basis of their race, color and creed (Donnelly & Whelan, 2017). Had Simo been judged on the basis of his urge to work or his ability to work and his talent to learn, he would have performed very well.

The types of discrimination that was faced by Rebecca in this case was the discrimination on the grounds of gender and disability. Firstly they agreed to hire her but when they noticed that few of her fingers were shorter than the normal length, she was judges on the basis of her disability, and they did not think it was a good idea to hire her (Kröller, 2017). She was also judged on the basis of her gender because they felt being a girl, with this sort of disability she would not be able to lift patients and that she was not suitable for this job.

The director and interviewer must not have judged her on the basis of her disability, they must have been provided her with a chance to prove if she was capable of doing the job and then decide either to hire her or terminate her. Besides this, she had also provided her experience certificate where she had been a part of kindergarten school and she claimed to have lifted children with disabilities without any difficulty, they must have trusted her experience certificate and hired her, and if not that they must have provided her a chance to prove herself (Clément, 2016). To some extent, they had reasons to judge her on the basis of her disability because she had few fingers shorter than others so she might face problems in holding someone with proper grip. One more factor was considered that previously she had lifted children with disabilities but at a nursing home she might have to lift a grown up person and there is a huge difference in both the cases.

Five steps that the hospital could have taken in order to prevent such cases in future are as follows

• The candidates must be requested to undergo a complete physical checkup
• The employees with experience must be provided with a chance to prove themselves
• Initially the candidates with experience must be provided with small and simple tasks for testing their ability
• Candidates who are hired for lifting and helping patients must be undergone through a special test where their physical abilities would be tested.
• Employees or candidates must not be judged on the grounds of their gender.

References

Adams, E. M. (2016). Human rights at work: Physical standards for employment and human rights law. Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism, 41(6), S63-S73.

Banks, K. (2016). Reasonable accommodation as equal opportunity in Canadian employment law.

Canadian Human Rights Commission / Commission canadienne des droits de la personne. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/index.html

Clément, D. (2016). Human Rights in Canada: A History. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.

Donnelly, J., & Whelan, D. J. (2017). International human rights. Hachette UK.

Failler, A. (2018). Canada 150: exhibiting national memory at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Citizenship Studies, 22(4), 358-380.

Hick, S., Halpin, E., & Hoskins, E. (Eds.). (2016). Human rights and the Internet. Springer.

Howard-Hassmann, R. E. (2018). Human rights and the search for community. Routledge.

Kröller, E. M. (Ed.). (2017). The Cambridge companion to Canadian literature. Cambridge University Press.

Lehrer, E. (2015). Thinking through the Canadian museum for human rights. American Quarterly, 67(4), 1195-1216.

Roth, T. (2018). Human Rights and the Canadian Extractive Sector in Latin America: Can Canada do more to prevent abuses and improve access to justice?.

Selby, J. A., Barras, A., & Beaman, L. G. (2018). Rethinking Canadian discourses of" reasonable accommodation". Social Inclusion, 6(2), 162-172.