B.C. executive's termination while on medical leave not discriminatory because he didn't co-operate in accommodation efforts
A British Columbia company’s duty to accommodate an executive on a lengthy sick leave ended when the executive failed to co-operate in the accommodation process, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
The worker joined SeaStar Solutions, a manufacturer of marine steering systems in Richmond, B.C., as HR manager in 2013 and was later promoted to HR director, reporting directly to the company’s president.
SeaStar had a policy of bridging employees who applied for disability benefits to ensure that they didn’t suffer any loss of income while waiting for approval. The short-term disability (STD) plan included uninterrupted regular salary for the first 15 days before filing a claim and up to eight weeks while the claim was adjudicated. The long-term disability (LTD) plan bridged an employee’s salary for up to one year for an approved claim.
In March 2017, the worker was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. He wouldn’t give any details to the president as he didn’t trust him with personal information — he told the HR advisor, with whom he was friendly, that he had seen the president share personal details of other employees.
On April 21, the worker sent a medical certificate stating that he was unable to work due to illness for one week. He returned on May 1, but by the end of that week he obtained another certificate that said he would be off work for two weeks due to illness or injury.
The worker returned to work on May 22, but for only four hours per day. The president directed the worker to communicate any information about his medical leave directly to him.
The worker went on medical leave again on May 29, providing a medical certificate with the same statement as the others, but this time it was for three months. The worker applied for STD benefits and the president asked him for more information “to understand the duration of your leave and nature of your treatment.” He sent the worker a letter for his doctor to complete, but the worker felt that it asked for too much confidential information.
The worker received STD benefits and salary bridging for the next four months. He didn’t contact the president, but he stayed in touch with the HR advisor. He requested no email contact from the company and that any mail should go to his parents’ address.
In late August, the worker applied for a benefits extension and provided a medical certificate recommending he stay off work until Nov. 30. The insurer requested additional information, but the worker didn’t respond. On Sept. 22, SeaStar stopped its bridging payments. The insurer terminated STD benefits on Oct. 2 because the information it had on file “does not support a claim of total disability.”
SeaStar sent three registered letters to the worker stating that he was now on unpaid leave and requesting an update on his expected return to work, but they were returned unclaimed or refused. The worker said he never received the letters and said that he was “an employee on sick leave with a physician’s note provided to you.”
The worker was rejected for LTD benefits because of insufficient information. He provided a new medical certificate saying he was unable to work due to illness or injury until Feb. 1, 2018. SeaStar still didn’t think it had sufficient medical information, so it terminated the worker’s employment on Dec. 1.
The insurer informed the company that it had retroactively approved the worker for LTD benefits, so SeaStar retroactively bridged his salary up to the termination date.
The worker filed a complaint alleging that SeaStar discriminated against him when it changed his status to an unpaid leave of absence and then terminated him while he was on medical leave.
The tribunal found that the worker had a mental disability — as evidenced by the medical certificates and the retroactively approved LTD benefits — and he requested accommodation in the form of a leave of absence. When SeaStar changed his status to an unpaid leave of absence and terminated his employment, the worker suffered an adverse impact.
The tribunal also found that the worker’s disability-related absence was a factor in the decisions to change his status and terminate his employment. SeaStar became frustrated with the lack of information and the uncertainty, ultimately leading to his termination.
However, the tribunal found that SeaStar made a reasonable effort to accommodate the worker. It accepted the medical certificates — despite their lack of detail — for six months and accommodated him with paid leaves before that. It tried to obtain more information so it could plan for his return — the worker was a senior executive who performed crucial work — but the worker didn’t co-operate. His communication was limited to exchanges with the HR advisor, he avoided the letters, and failed to provide any additional medical information.
The tribunal noted that the worker wasn’t obligated to provide detailed medical information to SeaStar, but the company was entitled to better information than the one-line medical certificates to support his ongoing absence. In addition, given the worker’s role as HR director, he should have known that the company needed more information to accommodate him.
The tribunal determined that the worker’s lack of co-operation impeded the accommodation process to the point that SeaStar’s duty to accommodate ended. It dismissed the discrimination complaint. See Saran v. SeaStar Solutions and others (No. 3), 2021 BCHRT 108.
