Job applicant requested screen reader with braille display and accessible training materials
An Ontario call centre has been ordered to pay $28,472 after refusing to hire a blind accessibility consultant without ever asking him how to solve the very accessibility challenges that led to his rejection.
In an Oct. 17, 2025 decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found Convergys Canada failed in both its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate Erik Burggraaf, who had passed all screening stages for a customer service role but was denied employment due to concerns about software compatibility with screen-reading technology.
Vice-chair Romona Gananathan ruled the company's accommodation process fell short when it conducted internal testing of accessibility software but never consulted Burggraaf — despite his extensive background training organizations including federal government departments and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind on the exact technology in question.
Internal testing for screen reader
The case arose after Burggraaf applied for a sales associate position at Convergys' Welland, Ont. location in August 2017. During his interview, he disclosed his blindness and requested a screen reader with braille display and accessible training materials.
The company acknowledged his accommodation needs and indicated it would explore solutions.
Over the following weeks, Convergys' IT department tested several screen-reading programs including JAWS, NVDA, Thunder, and Serotek to determine compatibility with proprietary software used for their sole client, AT&T.
The company concluded none of the programs worked adequately with the client's systems.
A separate Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision underscored that from the moment someone clicks “apply” on a job application, employers must be ready to remove barriers for candidates with disabilities.
Accommodation solutions lacking
However, the tribunal found critical gaps in this process. Despite having an accessibility technology expert as their candidate, Convergys never consulted Burggraaf about potential solutions or invited him to test the software himself.
"The applicant was never contacted by the respondent to explore any other accommodation solutions after the in-person interview," the tribunal noted.
"He was simply informed by the respondents in a voicemail message that their IT team has done testing on various software programs and none of them worked cohesively with their client systems and tools."
No consultation with client or external specialists
The company also failed to pursue accommodation options with AT&T or consult external organizations such as CNIB that specialize in workplace accommodation for blind employees. Burggraaf's resume demonstrated he had designed and delivered accessibility training for multiple federal and international organizations, and had tested software programs from a user perspective.
The tribunal emphasized that accommodation is a collaborative process requiring meaningful dialogue with the person seeking accommodation. This procedural duty was violated when Convergys made unilateral decisions about feasibility without Burggraaf's input.
"Given the applicant's experience and background in accessibility technology for the blind, he would likely have been able to suggest other programs or assist the respondents in finding alternative accommodation solutions that could have worked for him, had he been consulted by the respondents," Gananathan wrote.
Tribunal rejects undue hardship defence
Convergys argued the ability to independently navigate AT&T's proprietary software was a bona fide occupational requirement and that accommodation would cause undue hardship. The tribunal rejected this defence, noting the company presented no evidence about costs of accommodation software.
"There simply was little evidence advanced that could satisfy the onus on the respondents to establish that they had fulfilled their duty to accommodate the applicant on a substantive basis," the tribunal found.
The tribunal awarded Burggraaf $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, plus $8,472 in lost wages.
Gananathan also ordered Convergys to "develop human rights and accommodation policies in hiring that specifically apply to blind persons, review their interview process to ensure it is accessible to the blind, and make every effort to ensure accommodations for blind persons are addressed."
