The 1999 Supreme Court decision in the Meiorin and Grismer cases clarified the need for employers and service providers to do all they can, up to the point of undue hardship, to ensure that all their corporate activities take into account the needs of their workforce. This means that employers should no longer simply rely on an accommodation policy to respond to requests from individual employees who may be experiencing discrimination in the workplace. It means that employers should look closely at all their corporate programs and activities, including policies, practices, rules, standards, procurements and decisions relating to real property, and do all they can to eliminate potential discriminatory barriers within them. For example, a general rule that all employees must be willing to travel overnight might discriminate against people on the grounds of family status because it will tend to preclude people with family responsibilities. Such a rule should be closely examined to ensure it is only applied to positions where overnight travel is an essential part of the job. Similarly, procurement decisions for new communications technology should ensure the technology is fully accessible for people with a range of disabilities, or has compatible interfaces to allow for access. Taking this action will reduce the need for individual accommodation. It should be remembered, however, that a specific employee may still require a particular accommodation in accordance with an individual accommodation policy. For example, an employee's religious beliefs may require him or her to be absent from work on days of religious observance, to have prayer breaks during working hours, to observe a certain dress code, or to follow a dietary plan. An organization may have a policy allowing for flexible working hours, which aims to avoid discrimination on the basis of religious belief. However, a particular individual may have very specific religious commitments at a certain time of year that do not fit within the general policy. That individual's needs should be accommodated unless doing so would result in undue hardship. Managers should consider a number of flexible working arrangements. Similarly, a washroom fit-out in the staff area may meet the design specifications required to provide access, as far as possible, to employees with mobility impairments, or those who use wheelchairs. General design specifications, found in building regulations, can never meet every individual's needs, but it is reasonable for employers to use them when completing a fit-out. A particular employee may, however, require individual accommodation in the form of an additional support bar, carefully located, in order to gain access. The fact that the employer did all it could in the basic fit-out to build accommodation into the design does not mean that further individualized accommodation should not be provided short of undue hardship. |