Analysis Of Purres V. London Athletic Club (South) Inc. Case
Based on reading the case of “Purres v. London Athletic Club (South) Inc. ”, it shows that there were two cases of discrimination towards the applicant June Perres, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and disability discrimination.
The applicant was shown and experienced the two types discrimination from the respondent London Athletic Club (South) Inc. The applicant worked at London Athletic Club as a customer service associate, as she worked full time hours, 8 hours a day. She started working at London Athletic Club in February 2010. Her job consisted of long periods of standing, as she would answer phone calls, greet and help members, take care of paper work, and cleaning up the gym. A month after working at “LAC”, the applicant found out that she was pregnant, and the applicant began to experience swelling in her legs and feet, during the same time. She went to the doctor to see about the swelling, and the doctor provided her with a medical note on April 16th, 2010 and suggesting that she doesn’t stand for long periods of time and that it would help her condition if she sits and stands when at work. Although there was no medical proof that the pregnancy had affected her legs and feet to swell, she was still told by the doctor not to stand for long periods of time. June Perres had spoken to her manager Jim Pittam, about her situation, and that the doctor had given her a note about her condition, but the manager stated that “I don’t need to see the note but putting a chair or stool behind the counter would not work because it would be in the way”. Right there the manager failed to agree with the employer for reasonable accommodation. The applicant wasn’t aware of her right of accommodation, so instead she continued working but her condition got worse, so she decided to ask for less hours, which lead to part time hours, as On April 12th, 2010 she wrote to Chirsty Heckman, the manager of operations and human resources, requesting part-time hours. Ms. Heckman was not interested in the applicant’s medical note, giving the applicant reduced hours left the applicant to part-time which allowed her to have two-four shifts and affected her employment insurance maternity benefits.
The evidence shown between the applicant and the respondents club manager and manger of human resources, indicates that the workplace was not able to provide reasonable accommodation to the applicant, as their solution was to cut her hours severely, and give her a platform consisting a table and chair, to use when she wasn’t busy at the counter. A week in June 2010, the applicant was not a scheduled for work, which lead to her call the ministry of labour, and which she was advised her rights to accommodation. She spoke to Ms. Heckman concerning her hours to be switched to full time and her physical needs be accommodated. Ms. Heckman questioned the applicant’s ability to go back to full time and that she will look into it according to the applicant.
The reference of the previous line shows that Ms. Heckman discriminated the applicant because of her physical disability, and used a bona fide occupational qualification towards the applicant, as she doubted her ability to work full hours due to the hours of standing in the job. When it came to arguments both sides had their points to prove why did nothing wrong. The applicant said she proved to her manager that she a physical limitation, in which she wanted to be accommodated for, as she provided the medical note which the doctor gave her and the suggestion of not sitting for long periods of times and sit and stand alternatively.
The respondent replied asking why the applicant took so long to give the medical note, all the way in June, two months after receiving it. They also taught that reducing her hours and giving the table and chair would help the problem. The applicant requested the tribunal to compensate for wages lost when her hours were reduced which equalled $35, 000 and $5000 medical benefits due to her hours being switched to part-time. At the end, the decision of the application was granted and in favour for the applicant. The remedy’s ordered are in the following listing… The Tribunal’s remedial powers are contained in Section 45. 2 of the Code, which reads as follows: 45. 2 (1) On an application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the application:
An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
3. An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.
The orders given to the respondent were as follows,
- The respondent will pay to the applicant an amount equal to the difference between the applicant’s actual earnings, and the amount she would have earned working full-time, for the period from May 12, 2010, until the date she began her pregnancy leave, less applicable statutory deductions, and subject to mitigation, if any, by the applicant. I will remain seized in the event of any dispute over this amount;
- The respondent will reissue the Record of Employment issued at the time the applicant left for her pregnancy leave, revised to reflect earnings as if she had worked full-time, in accordance with the paragraph above;
- The respondent will pay to the applicant monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect of $10, 000 without deductions;
- All employees of the respondent who perform supervisory or management functions to take the eLearning module “Human Rights 101” that is found on the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s website at www. ohrc. on. ca and confirm completion of same in writing to the applicant or her representative within 90 days of the date of this decision; and.
- Post-judgment interest at a rate of 2. 0% shall apply on the amounts above from 30 days following the date of this Decision.
The applicant got more then what she asked for, thereby paying the applicant an equal amount for her wages, as when she was full time, from the period of May 12th from when she went on maternity leave. The applicant was also granted a $10, 00 compensation for injury to dignity, feeling and self respect and without deduction, and a post judgement interest was applied to all amounts from 30 days following the decision which would add a higher amount that would be granted to the applicant.
What I learned from this case is, as an employee you should always be aware of your rights at work, and to always your references such as ministry of labour, health, etc. as we are given rights to protect ourselves at work. Also, that when dealing with employers, not to be intimated, and be taken advantaged of because I as an employee is just as important as him or her, and that not be treated wrongfully or discriminated in the workplace. When you look at, this girl was risking her baby’s life with standing and causing stress upon herself which could affect her baby and affect her health with walking, running, etc. You shouldn’t kill yourself over a job that would replace you if you were not able to make it (dead) the next day, and that’s something that was shown which could have been baby’s she could have had a miscarriage and lose her baby, and then how would she react, would she quit, sue, either way the company would fill that position instantly, these are things the HR community, and employers must look into now to avoid these type of cases, and which could cost money and a bad name, in which the London Athletics Club experienced. Their HR representative Ms. Heckman didn’t help the problem, when the applicant came to her. As she is the manager she should show better example, and accommodate their employee needs, and same goes for all HR departments and employers as that’s their job, to deal with people in the right matter, if not the court gets involved and their company gets exposed.
HR and employers should try to get know their employees and their needs (if justified) to make the workplace a better place and not have their employees be intimated or scared to come to work. They should enforce and teach their employees about their work rights, accommodations they could have, to avoid problems in the future and by doing that it will be better for the company. You want people to be looking forward to work and not look at it as a to do in their daily checklist. By making people happy at work, the work environment is more enjoyable and when that is achieved the workplace is at peace. HR is like glue it keeps things ( the work place) together.
