June 2015

As the workforce becomes more and more diverse, sexual orientation and gender identity have become very hot topics in discussions regarding employee rights. It may be surprising to learn that neither is considered a protected class under current federal employment discrimination law in the United States.

At last count, however, 32 states, including the District

Recently, allegations of sexual harassment in the kitchen of a trendy Toronto restaurant have ignited a dialogue about workplace harassment. While this doesn’t excuse it, industry veterans aren’t surprised by the complaint, saying that many of Canada’s restaurants have a workplace culture that is overwhelming male, close-knit, and full of sexualized banter.

The employee

The Manitoba government is introducing new amendments to the Workers Compensation Act that would make it easier for employees to have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recognized as a work-related occupational disease. The legislation does that by creating the presumption that workers suffering from PTSD received the illness from the job, if diagnosed by a medical

The legal context

Under French employment law, employees’ representatives such as staff delegates or members of the works council enjoy a specific protection. In particular, if an employer wishes to dismiss such an employee, it must comply with a specific procedure which requires, inter alia, obtaining authorization from the Labour inspector. In this context, the

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal recently considered the types of accommodations employers are required to make with regard

The employee, a teacher with the Coquitlam School District, filed a complaint with the Tribunal alleging that her employer’s failure to provide a scent-free work environment amounted to discrimination on the basis of physical disability, contrary

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has found that an employer breached the contract of employment by failing to give a payment under the terms of its discretionary bonus plan. The plan had become part of the contact of employment and the employer was required by an implied term of the contract to refrain from exercising the discretion capriciously, arbitrarily or unreasonably.

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States, in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., held that an employer need not have actual knowledge of the need for religious accommodation to be liable for a hiring decision if the employer refuses to accommodate a perceived need for a religious accommodation.

A recent decision of the Federal Court has affirmed the importance of a Federal government employee’s right to procedural fairness.

The dispute centred around whether an employee, in appealing his annual performance review, was entitled to see documents explaining his appraisal. The employer, a federal agenct, utilized what is often referred to as a “pay-at-risk”