N.S. correctional services discussed accommodation with dyslexic employee, but didn’t actually do much
The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission has found a provincial government department did not go far enough in its efforts to accommodate a man with a learning disability, resulting in discrimination that contributed to his anxiety disorder.
Michael Trask, 48, suffered from dyslexia, a learning disability that hindered his ability to read and write, though not affecting his other mental functions. In 1996, he moved to Prince Edward Island and studied to become a corrections officer. At the completion of his program, he was allowed to complete the written test because, he said, they accommodated him and his disability by allowing him more time to write it.
Dyslexia revealed in job interviews
Trask worked as a correction officer in Prince Edward Island for several months but decided he wanted to move back to his home province of Nova Scotia, where his son lived. From 1997 to 1999, he applied for several jobs at correctional facilities. He usually had difficulty with the written part of the application but when he informed the Nova Scotia Department of Justice that he was dyslexic, they allowed him extra time to complete the written part of the interviews and told him he should take courses to improve his writing and computer skills. He said he considered some of the job applications as interviewing experience and didn’t expect to be successful.
Trask worked in part-time positions at three different correctional facilities in Nova Scotia during this period. He had difficulty reading and writing but he was able to do his job with accommodation and support from management at the facilities. In September 1999, he was hired full-time at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth, N.S.
There were no significant problems during Trask’s first couple of years at the facility, until August 2002 when he received a performance appraisal that, though overall positive, said he needed to work on written communication to prepare “competent” reports. This language upset Trask and he pointed out that he was dyslexic. His supervisors said it was a miscommunication and the wording was changed.
Computer and training would help employee work with disability
The department asked Trask what assistance he needed and Trask suggested a computer and specialized training to help him with written reports. However, he didn’t receive these and in November 2003 Trask asked for funding to attend an education program for people with dyslexia and reiterated his need for a computer.
Trask met with supervisors on Feb. 12, 2004 and asked again for a laptop computer and a quiet area where he could write reports. He was offered a desktop computer in a small program room where he could work quietly, but Trask was concerned about the lack of portability for when he rotated to different units. Other computers were offered, but they were in high traffic areas which made it difficult for him to concentrate.
Trask became increasingly frustrated and began experiencing anxiety and depression. He was agitated and verbally aggressive at work until he finally went on stress leave in summer 2004. He returned a few months later but had to go on leave again in December. Finally the Department of Justice placed Trask on administrative leave in May 2005 for “inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour while at work.”
Trask was medically evaluated and his doctor said he was unfit to return to work and a transfer would be more appropriate. The department attempted to negotiate a return-to-work plan but Trask applied for and received long-term disability benefits.
Trask filed a human rights complaint, alleging the department failed to accommodate him in his job applications, which delayed his employment. When he was finally hired full-time, he said he was discriminated against and held back in his career because of his dyslexia.
Accommodation in job interviews, but not once employee started working
The board found no evidence the Department of Justice didn’t accommodate Trask in his applications. It gave him advice and special allowance and Trask himself said some of the interviews were for practice and the department eventually hired him full-time.
However, the department’s efforts at accommodation while Trask was working full-time failed to meet its obligations, said the board. Though it was clear management was aware of Trask’s disability and discussed possible accommodations, little was actually done. Trask continually checked in and made suggestions as to what could be done — computer access, training, time to prepare reports and support — but this only resulted in “discussions and meetings.”
It was also clear Trask was suffering from psychological problems as time went on and the department had an obligation to inquire as to its extent. His reaction to the performance appraisal wording was one incident that should have triggered the employer to look into his state of mind, the board found. By the time it placed him on administrative leave, it was too late.
The board found the Department of Justice failed to live up to its duty to accommodate Trask’s disability. It ruled that if Trask was medically cleared to return to work the department should continue the return-to-work process. Since the Department of Justice was a government department, the board said there was a public interest in ensuring it was free from discrimination. To this end, the department was ordered to undergo anti-discrimination sensitivity training from the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission.
For more information see:
