Background
Jim Christie was an employee at an Albertan Dairy Plant since 1980. In 1983, he joined the Worldwide Church of God and as part of his observance of the faith, he had to take a number of days off work. The Dairy Plant was initially accommodating, but when he tried to take off a Monday, which was the busiest day of the week, it refused to let him off and told him that if he did not show up to work, he would be fired. Christie did not show up on Monday and, when he returned from work on Tuesday, his job was filled with a new employee.
Christie submitted a complaint under the Individual's Rights Protection Act ("Act") for dismissal based on religious grounds. The Board of Inquiry ordered that Christie be compensated for lost wages. On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that attendance on Mondays was a bona fide occupational requirement and therefore a valid ground for just cause termination.
The issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Dairy Plant could justify the termination on the basis the requirement that Christie work on Mondays is a bona fide occupational requirement under section 7(3) of the Act and, if not, whether it still open to the respondent to demonstrate it had accommodated the complainant's religious beliefs up to the point of undue hardship and if so, whether the Dairy Plant reasonably accommodated Christie's religious beliefs.
Opinion of the Court
Wilson J, writing for the majority, held there was no bona fide occupational requirement for Monday attendance and that the dairy farm did not accommodate to the point of undue hardship.
Wilson described the situation of one of adverse effect discrimination, which she defined as "a rule that is neutral on its face but has an adverse effect on certain members of the group to whom it applies". Monday attendance, she found, was an isolated incident and there was no evidence that it would be a recurring event. Thus, it was not a bona fide occupational requirement.
She then considered whether the dairy farm accommodated Christie to the point of undue hardship. She observed it was not necessary to provide a comprehensive definition of undue hardship and instead gave a list of factors:
- financial costs of accommodation
- disruption of the collective agreement
- problems of morale of other employees
- interchangeability of work force and facilities
- size of the employer's operation (which may also influence the other factors, such as whether the financial cost is undue or the difficulty in adapting the work force or facilities to accommodate individuals)
- safety concerns
Good faith, in human interactions, is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction. While some Latin phrases have lost their literal meaning over centuries, this is not the case with bona fides; it is still widely used and interchangeable with its generally accepted modern-day English translation of good faith. It is an important concept within law and business. The opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides (duplicity) and perfidy (pretense). In contemporary English, the usage of bona fides is synonymous with credentials and identity. The phrase is sometimes used in job advertisements, and should not be confused with the bona fide occupational qualifications or the employer's good faith effort, as described below.
British Columbia v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union [1999] 3 SCR 3, 1999 SCC 48 – called Meiorin for short – is a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is a US labor law that forbids employment discrimination against anyone at least 40 years of age in the United States. In 1967, the bill was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The ADEA prevents age discrimination and provides equal employment opportunity under conditions that were not explicitly covered in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also applies to the standards for pensions and benefits provided by employers, and requires that information concerning the needs of older workers be provided to the general public.
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) is a proposed amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would limit employers' discretion to decline to accommodate the religious practices of their employees or prospective employees in the United States.
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
Ontario v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which first acknowledged the existence of indirect discrimination through conduct that creates prejudicial effect.
British Columbia v British Columbia , [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868, known as the Grismer Estate case, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on human rights law. The Court held that the British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles was in violation of the provincial Human Rights Code for cancelling the driver's licence of Terry Grismer because he had a visual disability.
Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud, [1992] 2 SCR 970 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court found that an employer was under a duty to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees to the point of undue hardship.
Ontario v Etobicoke , [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on age discrimination. Several firemen challenged a mandatory retirement policy under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Court found that the employer did not sufficiently justify the policy as a bona fide occupational requirement.
In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US) or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada) or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering.
A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a proven need. That need can vary. Accommodations can be religious, physical, mental or emotional, academic, or employment related and are often mandated by law. Each country has its own system of reasonable accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, saying refusal to make accommodation results in discrimination. It defines a "reasonable accommodation" as:
... necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (1986), reversed a lower court's decision and stated that the lower court should not have heard the case until after the Ohio Civil Rights Commission had concluded their investigation. The Commission argued that the non-renewal and firing constituted unlawful sex discrimination, while the school argued that this was an ecclesiastical matter not suitable for review by civil authorities.
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), was the first United States Supreme Court case in which the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense was used.
Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 SCR 362 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has had significant impact in Canadian employment law, in that:
In law, wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a situation in which an employee's contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. Laws governing wrongful dismissal vary according to the terms of the employment contract, as well as under the laws and public policies of the jurisdiction.
In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate with Aboriginal peoples arises when the Crown contemplates actions or decisions that may affect Aboriginal or Treaty rights. This duty arises most often in the context of natural resource extraction such as mining, forestry, oil, and gas.
Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.
Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292 is a US employment discrimination law case concerning bona fide occupational qualifications. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The law contains an exception in the case of bona fide occupational qualifications, allowing business to hire on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin in instances where it is a qualification that is reasonably needed and necessary for its operations. Bona fide occupational qualifications are qualities or attributes that employers are allowed to consider when hiring employees that are often illegal and considered discrimination to utilize in other circumstances.
Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. Appellee Arthur Frank Mayson worked for 16 years in an organization operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was terminated from employment when he "failed to qualify for a temple recommend, that is, a certificate that he is a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples." He filed suit in district court, arguing that his firing violated discrimination on the basis of religion in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court agreed. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title VII's exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition on religious discrimination, even in secular activities, did not violate the First Amendment.
Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292 is a US employment discrimination law case concerning bona fide occupational qualifications. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The law contains an exception in the case of bona fide occupational qualifications, allowing business to hire on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin in instances where it is a qualification that is reasonably needed and necessary for its operations. Bona fide occupational qualifications are qualities or attributes that employers are allowed to consider when hiring employees that are often illegal and considered discrimination to utilize in other circumstances.
