Worker refused accommodated position, provided vague medical info
The termination of a probationary employee who went off work following a workplace injury but didn’t provide much medical information was not discriminatory, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
Quantex is a waste management services company based in Toronto. On Sept. 19, 2018, the worker joined Quantex as an operation supervisor, starting with a probationary period.
Five days later, on Sept. 24, a co-worker dropped a jar containing a chemical substance. The chemical splashed on the worker’s ankle, causing a small chemical burn. The worker drove himself to the hospital, where the burn was dressed. The worker was discharged without any prescriptions for medication.
The worker drove back to work but didn’t finish his shift. On Sept. 25, he put in a full workday, walking around the plant, warehouse, yard, lab, and stairs. He didn’t indicate any issues with his ankle.
The worker completed paperwork for the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and he was approved for benefits shortly thereafter. On Sept. 26, he went on vacation for a week, during which he was able to walk around without assistance. However, his wound became infected while he was away.
Medical note unsigned
The worker returned from vacation on Oct. 5, working three full days while driving to work and walking around the workplace. On Oct. 10, he left work early and went to the hospital for treatment of his infected wound. He received a medical note indicating that he “may not return to work” for one week but it was not signed and the worker didn’t provide it to Quantex.
The worker was off work on Oct. 11 and saw his family doctor, who provided a medical note for the appointment. The same day, the worker called his manager and was told he would be accommodated with work at a desk in the office that would not involve walking. However, the worker didn’t want to go to work until his wound was healed.
The worker claimed that specialized nurses were coming to his home every day to change bandages and monitor the healing process, although he drove to a couple of appointments and no nurses came for more than a week.
On Oct. 23, the worker saw his doctor again, who provided him with a medical note stating that the worker was “totally disabled on Oct. 11, 2018” and would be able to return to regular work on Oct. 29.
No further medical information
While the worker was off work, he communicated with Quantex three times but he didn’t provide further information beyond the medical note. The company continued to pay him and asked to kept posted on his prognosis.
The worker returned to work on Oct. 29 and was told that his employment was terminated because he “was not a good fit” as a probationary employee. No mention was made of his chemical burn, but the worker believed that he was terminated because of the injury.
The worker filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal for filing a WSIB claim for his work-related injury.
The tribunal noted that the worker bore the onus of establishing prima facie discrimination by showing that he had a protected right under the Ontario Human Rights Code, he suffered a disadvantage or adverse impact, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the disadvantage or adverse impact.
Disability under code
In this case, the fact that the worker received WSIB benefits for his absence meant that his temporary chemical burn was a disability under the code, which included “an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997” in the disability definition, said the tribunal. In addition, the termination of the worker’s employment was a disadvantage that he suffered, it said.
This left the issue of whether the workers’ disability was a factor in his dismissal. The worker was a probationary employee and Quantex gave the reason for dismissal as that he wasn’t a good fit, while the worker didn’t provide any evidence that the company raised his disability with him or told him it was a reason for termination. In fact, the company communicated with him and paid him during his absence, the tribunal said.
The tribunal noted that the worker did not provide any documentation of his prescriptions or appointments other than the brief medical note of Oct. 23, 2018. Since the worker only exchanged three emails and didn’t provide any new information, his communication during his absence was limited and not enough to be considered co-operation with any accommodation discussion, the tribunal said.
As for the medical note itself, it was vague and unclear on whether the worker was unable to work in any capacity until Oct. 29, particularly since the worker was able to walk without assistance to and from his appointments, said the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the worker’s evidence on his treatment from specialized nurses was inconsistent and he wasn’t entirely truthful about it to Quantex.
Disability not factor in dismissal
The tribunal determined that the worker didn’t provide sufficient support to be on a medical leave of absence. Without a medical justification for not going to work, there was no discrimination in the decision to terminate his employment, said the tribunal, adding that the worker also failed to provide any evidence that his WSIB claim was a factor in the termination decision that could constitute a reprisal.
The tribunal also noted that the worker appeared to have an honest belief that he was terminated for discriminatory reasons, but such a belief was not evidence of discrimination. The tribunal also found that the timing of the termination was not enough to lead to the conclusion it was discriminatory, as the worker was a probationary employee.
The worker’s complaint was dismissed. See Contreras v. Quantex Inc., 2023 HRTO 1773.
