Assignment 1- Human Rights & Accommodation
Rishu Gautam
Student ID #4383258
Health Care Administration, St. Lawrence College
Management of Human Resources in Health care
Professor Michelle Martinez
May 18, 2024
Human Rights & Accommodation
Describe the primary issue with this case (what was the human rights issue?) – 10%
The primary human rights issue in the Meiorin case was if the physical fitness test required by
the British Columbia Ministry of Forests was discriminatory against women. The aerobic test of
the fitness standard which required running 2.5 kilometers in 11 minutes was challenged. It was
believed that the test was based on male physiological standards and it did not take gender
difference into consideration.
Tawney Meiorin, a female firefighter, was lay off after failing to meet the aerobic test standard
despite her satisfactory performance over three year. She argued that the test was
discriminatory because it did not consider the natural physiological differences between men
and women and it excluded female candidates from employment opportunities in firefighting
role.
The Supreme Court of Canada found that the aerobic test was discriminatory and that the
employer failed to justify it as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). The court guided a
new approach that employers must prove that the standard are standard to job performance
without imposing undue hardship on any group of workers.
This case highlighted the importance of ensuring that employment standards should not
discriminate any group and that they must be relevant and genuinely necessary for job
performance to uphold human rights and workplace equality.
Describe the outcome of this case (what should employers take from this case)?
The key outcomes and takeaways for employers from this case are as follows:
1. Unified Test for Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFOR)
The court established a three-part test to determine whether a discriminatory standard is
justified as a BFOR. Employers should follow these guidelines while setting up their standards
for job performance.
o Rational Connection: The standard must be rationally connected to the performance of
the job.
o Good Faith: The employer must the standard in an honest and good faith and that the
standards should be genuinely necessary to fulfill work-related purpose.
o Reasonable Necessity: The standard must be reasonably necessary to accomplish work-
related purpose.
2. Employers must consider the discriminatory effects of their standards and practices in
context of human rights.
3. Employers must consider accommodations for employees before deciding any standards for
job performance. Employers must assess whether their job-related standards are genuinely
necessary for job performance and whether they can be adjusted to accommodate employees
without causing undue hardship.
4. Employers should regularly review job-related standards and criteria to ensure they are
essential for the job and do not discriminate against certain groups. They must adjust physical
requirements, altering work schedules, or providing necessary support and equipment.
Overall, the Meiorin case serves as a critical reminder that employment practices must be fair,
inclusive, and justifiable, ensuring that all employees have equal opportunities to perform their
jobs effectively.
