View cases - Stewart McKelvey

further, there is nothing to suggest that he was open to changing his mind. When Mr. Jonescalled him two days later, Mr. Eisler was unwilling to give Mr. Jones his job back. Mr. Eislertold Mr. Jones that he “should be able to ask any employee to do anything whatsoever withoutconsideration for their religious point of view” and that he had a “religion-neutral policy”.[39] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that, if a neutral job requirement has an adverseeffect on an employee because of his or her religion, the employer must take reasonable steps toaccommodate the employee. The employer is not required to accommodate the employee if todo so would cause undue hardship: see, for example, Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v.Renaud, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970. The Respondents knew that Mr. Jones’ religious beliefs preventedhim from decorating the store. Rather than attempting to accommodate those beliefs, Mr. Eislergave him an ultimatum. There is no evidence that accommodating Mr. Jones’ religious beliefswould have been an undue hardship. On the contrary, his beliefs had been accommodatedthroughout his employment at C.H.E. – prior to 1998, he was not required to decorate.[40] The Respondents submit that Mr. Jones had a duty to give the Respondents anopportunity to accommodate him. They submit that his call to Mr. Eisler two days later wasinsufficient because it “was water under the bridge”.[41] In Renaud, the Court stated that the search for accommodation is a shared responsibility.The complainant has a duty to facilitate the search for an accommodation. The complainant isresponsible for bringing the facts relating to discrimination to the employer’s attention. Thecomplainant is not responsible for initiating a solution. If an employer initiates a proposedaccommodation that is reasonable, and which would, if implemented, fulfil the duty toaccommodate, and the complainant causes the proposal to founder by failing to take reasonablesteps, then the complaint will be dismissed.[42] Mr. Jones informed Mr. Eisler that putting out Christmas decorations was contrary to hisreligion. In this case the only proposal advanced by Mr. Eisler was described by Mr. Eisler inhis telephone call to Mr. Jones on November 19. He said, “I gave you the choice ofmerchandising anything and everything that I had asked anybody and everybody else to do andyou exercised your option.” In these circumstances, Mr. Jones did not fail to meet his duty to11