Epileptic worker needed time off to reduce stress, but employer reduced workload soon after
A British Columbia employer’s attempt to have an epileptic employee’s complaint of discrimination based on disability for a work reduction following customer complaints has been rejected by the province’s human rights tribunal.
Roger Hall was hired in August 2011 to be a door shop labourer for Mara Lumber, a home improvement and building supply store in Kelowna, B.C. His job duties involved customer service, mixing paint, and various things in the door shop.
When he was hired, Hall informed Mara that he had epilepsy and could have seizures, but they were infrequent and controlled by medication. Mara helped Hall by adjusting his hours and work conditions to ensure he had a safe working environment. Hall appreciated the company’s acceptance of his epilepsy and wrote a letter to Mara’s president and staff in January 2012 thanking them.
In June 2012, Hall’s duties changed to further accommodate his needs. He became a contractor hanging doors in the door shop, using his own tools, setting his own hours and pace.
A short time after Hall began his contractor work, the company discovered he had been starting work at 3 a.m. Hall said it was quieter then and helped him with his disability. He said he could get more work done and he found it less stressful. Mara’s owner agreed to allow Hall to work in the door shop from 3 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Later in 2012, the North American Fenestration Standard (NAFS) came into effect, setting out specifications for manufactured and pre-assembled doors, windows, and skylights. Since Hall was Mara’s only door hanger, he was expected to learn NAFS. However, he refused and Mara had to start buying NAFS doors instead. This caused its prices to increase and sales to decline.
About two years later, in May 2014, Mara told Hall it was concerned with his safety when he worked by himself in the early morning. The company asked him to provide a medical note about any impact his disability could have on his safety during those hours, so Hall provided a note stating he was “safe to work in his shop on his own.” Hall also submitted a letter stating he acknowledged the risks of working on his own.
Also in May 2014, Hall was disciplined for not showing up to work. Mara was getting concerned about his work quality and interaction with other employees, including hostility to criticism and direction.
The volume of work in the door shop decreased in September 2014 and Hall inquired about other opportunities in the store. Mara temporarily assigned him to the customer service desk, where he worked shifts for the next 10 months.
By July 2015, Hall was feeling exhausted from working at the customer service desk while still putting in early hours in the door shop. This made his epilepsy worse, so he told the company he didn’t want to work at the desk any longer. Mara complied with the request. Soon after, Hall decided to take the NAFS course at his own expense.
In August 2015, Hall provided a doctor’s note that said he needed to reduce his stress at work and he may require medical leave since his working conditions were triggering seizures. He considered stopping work at the customer service desk as a medical leave but wanted to continue door shop work.
Mara decided to advertise for a new door hanger position with NAFS qualifications, as it was receiving customer complaints about the quality of Hall’s work and staff complaints about his attitude. It also needed to make its prices more competitive. The company claimed it wanted to reduce Hall’s workload and but there would still be interior doors for him to hang.
The new door hanger was hired in September and Hall’s workload decreased. A month later, he submitted a doctor’s note advising he needed time off. Mara heard nothing further from Hall until it received a letter from a lawyer advising of a potential human rights complaint. Hall claimed that Mara had stopped scheduling work for him when he took medical leave from the customer service desk, resulting in constructive dismissal because of his accommodation needs due to his disability.
Mara applied to have Hall’s complaint dismissed, arguing there was no evidence it violated Hall’s human rights.
The tribunal found Mara kept Hall on after the NAFS was implemented and chose to purchase the doors while he performed other work for three years until he learned the standard. This demonstrated the company felt NAFS knowledge wasn’t essential for Hall to continue working, said the tribunal.
When Mara did decide to hire a new door hanger with NAFS knowledge and gradually reduce Hall’s workload, it came after Hall had taken the NAFS course and coincided with his request for a less stressful work environment and the suggestion he may need a leave of absence, the tribunal pointed out.
“The timing could support an inference that (Hall’s) request for accommodation was a factor in the reduction of his workload,” the tribunal said.
See Hall v. Mara Lumber (Kelowna), 2017 CarswellBC 276 (B.C. Human Rights Trib.).
