What Happens When Employers Fail to Accommodate?
For employers unfamiliar with accommodation, it can be a tricky concept to grasp. The instinct might be: if someone can do the job, great. If not, they’re simply not suited for the role… right? Not quite. And definitely not legally.
Employers have a duty to accommodate employees up to the point of undue hardship. That’s a high threshold. Even if it costs more money or disrupts standard operations, employers are generally required to adjust the role to fit the employee, just as much as the employee is expected to fit the role.
So, what happens when an employer fails to meet this obligation? Here are two cases that illustrate the consequences:
The $42,000 Broken Tailbone
In Rollick v. 1526597 Ontario Inc. (2014 HRTO 337), Sabrina Rollick was working as a cashier at a Tim Hortons franchise when she broke her tailbone outside of work. Four months later, she was cleared to return with medical accommodations. When she reached out to resume her shifts, she was told to speak to the business owner.
The owner insisted she perform tasks that were outside the scope of her documented restrictions and limitations, and her medical condition prohibited her from doing so. When she explained she couldn’t, he fired her. She made a complaint to the Head office, which then stepped in and reinstated her on a gradual return-to-work schedule.
Despite following proper protocols and submitting medical documentation when requesting time off due to the injury, she was fired again three weeks later. The owner’s words? “We are sick of this… You can take me to the Head Office, the Labour Board, or the Human Rights, but your services are no longer needed here!”
Ms. Rollick, a single mother, struggled to find new work and faced serious financial hardship. She decided to follow the owner’s advice and took the case to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which ruled in her favour. While she had been medically cleared to work, her employer perceived her as disabled and failed to accommodate that perception.
The Tribunal awarded her over $27,000 in lost wages (for the 74 weeks she was unemployed) and $15,000 for injury to dignity, noting that although the Human Rights Code is meant to be remedial, not punitive, her treatment warranted compensation.
No Nanny, No Job
Accommodation isn’t limited to disability. Family status — such as being a caregiver — is also protected under the Human Rights Code.
In Cane v. Jaytex of Canada Limited (2024 HRTO 1705), Lucy Cane returned from maternity leave expecting to resume work. Her role had changed (which she accepted), and the company encouraged her to hire a nanny instead of using daycare, claiming children in daycare get sick too often, causing parents to miss work.
Ms. Cane opted for daycare, paid a non-refundable deposit, and requested a minor change: to start her workday at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:30 for drop-off purposes. The employer pushed back, again suggesting a nanny. Before she could return, she was terminated, even though she was told the business was doing well.
While the employer later claimed financial strain, the Tribunal found Ms. Cane was treated differently because of her family status. Even if downsizing was inevitable, she was singled out early for not conforming to her employer’s childcare preference.
She was awarded $4,975 in lost wages, $4,460 for her daycare deposit, and $15,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Final Thoughts
Accommodation may be unfamiliar terrain but ignoring it can be a costly mistake. Employees are legally entitled to it, and employers are legally obligated to provide it, even if it means some added expense or operational adjustment.
~ Oxford HR Group
