View cases - Stewart McKelvey

62iii. Is it necessary to have all employees meet the single standard for theemployer to accomplish its legitimate purpose or could standardsreflective of group or individual differences and capabilities beestablished?iv. Is there a way to do the job that is less discriminatory while stillaccomplishing the employer's legitimate purpose?v. Is the standard properly designed to ensure that the desiredqualification is met without placing an undue burden on those towhom the standard applies?vi. Have other parties who are obliged to assist in the search forpossible accommodation fulfilled their roles?2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[217] To meet the procedural component of the duty to accommodate, CN had a duty to showthat it had considered and reasonably rejected any accommodation that would haveaccommodated the needs of the Complainant.[218] The only evidence that this assessment of other form of accommodation might haveoccurred is the evidence that the Union had suggested canvassing the employees in Jasper to see ifanybody would volunteer to cover the shortage instead of the Complainant, Kasha Whyte andDenise Seeley. But, since nobody came forward, the canvassing stopped. There is no evidencethat CN did an individualized assessment of the Complainant’s situation or investigated anyalternative form of accommodation[219] I will now deal with CN’s position to the effect that it would be undue hardship to grantthe relief sought by the Complainant because she would then be granted “super seniority” basedon the simple fact of her status as a parent.[220] According to Stephanie Ziemer, CN does not capture the information regarding how manyof its employees are parents. She added that the only way to have this information would be toreview each employee’s file to see who they designate as dependants. Ms. Ziemer further addedthat from CN’s employees “group insurance” benefit plan “we can assume that approximately69% of [CN’s] workforce are parents.” The methodology used by CN to produce this evidence