Disability Based Termination Concerns

Summary

Termination based on disability without considering necessary accommodations may violate the Ontario Human Rights Code. Employers must accommodate disabilities like ADHD unless it causes undue hardship. Section 5 prohibits discrimination based on disability, while Section 11 addresses neutral requirements that disproportionately affect individuals with disabilities. Section 17 mandates accommodation unless it causes undue hardship. If accommodations were not provided or requested, it could lead to claims of discrimination. Consider consulting with the Ontario Human Rights Commission for guidance.

Full Conversation

: In the case of Ms. Merritt- The specific named respondents Manager Candice Coburn and Intern-supervisor formed an evaluation that focuses on poor performance linked to their disability, such as social challenges. ADHD can affect social interactions and communication skills, which may lead to misunderstandings or difficulties in the workplace. Evaluating the employee based solely on these challenges, without considering the broader context of their disability and without providing necessary accommodation, ignores their potential and contributions.

In Ontario, termination based on disability is addressed by Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination in employment. Evaluations that focus solely on poor performance linked to an employee's disability, without considering the context and providing necessary accommodations, may be discriminatory.
Could you provide more details on the termination process and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

In the case of Ms. Merritt- The specific named respondents Manager Candice Coburn and Intern-supervisor formed an evaluation that focuses on poor performance linked to their disability, such as social challenges. ADHD can affect social interactions and communication skills, which may lead to misunderstandings or difficulties in the workplace. Evaluating the employee based solely on these challenges, without considering the broader context of their disability and without providing necessary accommodation, ignores their potential and contributions.

Termination based on disability is a serious matter under Ontario's Human Rights Code, specifically Section *, prohibiting discrimination in employment. Evaluations solely based on disability-related performance without accommodations may be discriminatory.
Can you provide more details on the termination process and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

the employer did not inquire for accomdations although the employee showed a need for accomdations and the manager waas aware of the disbilty

Termination based on disability or poor performance linked to disability without considering the need for accommodations can be discriminatory under Ontario's Human Rights Code, Section *.
- Section * prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
- Evaluations ignoring accommodations for disabilities like ADHD may violate these rights.
Can you provide details on any specific accommodations that were requested or how the need for accommodations was communicated to the employer?

the need of accomdations was commuicated to the employer via email when concerns were raised about work place harrassment

Termination based on disability or poor performance linked to disability without considering the need for accommodations can be discriminatory under Ontario's Human Rights Code, specifically Section *. This section prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. Evaluations that ignore accommodations for disabilities like ADHD may violate these rights.
Could you provide more details on the response from your employer after you communicated your need for accommodations?

the employer did not inquire about accomdations

Termination based on disability or poor performance linked to a disability without considering necessary accommodations can be discriminatory under Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
- Section * prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
- Evaluations ignoring accommodations for disabilities like ADHD may violate these rights.
Could you please share the specific content of the email where you communicated your need for accommodations and any response received from your employer?

the email to Youth mental health worker addressing issues of their behaviour disclosed the disbility the manager was included in the email as well as the organization

Based on the information provided, it appears that there may be a strong case for discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, specifically Section *, which prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. Here are some points to consider:
- Section *: Prohibits discrimination in employment based on disability.
- Evaluations: Should not focus solely on disability-related challenges without considering accommodations.
- Failure to Provide Accommodations: If the employer did not inquire or provide necessary accommodations despite being aware of the disability, this could strengthen the case.
Can you provide any additional information on the specific accommodations that were needed or any further details on the employer's response to your accommodation requests?

(See Section IV-* – “Meeting the accommodations.) [*] In a case involving the accommodation of a mental health disability in the workplace, the court said: “a failure to give any thought or consideration to the issue of accommodation, including what, if any, steps could be taken constitutes a failure to satisfy the ‘procedural’ duty to accommodate.” [*]

In Ontario, if you believe you have been discriminated against based on a disability and your employer failed to consider accommodations, you may have a strong case under Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
- Section *: Prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
- Employer's Duty: Employers must consider and accommodate disabilities.
- Procedural Duty: Failure to consider accommodations violates the procedural duty to accommodate.
Can you share more about any other instances where accommodations were requested or denied?

REWRITE : The recorded evaluation proves the specific named respondents recognized challenging behaviors that showed mental health or disability accommodations were necessary in the workplace and they had legal obligations to inquire. However, the specific named respondents did not fulfill their duties to inquire about mental health and disability is linked to the performance issues. Before their submission to the organization (Covenant House Toronto) to terminate employment based on performance issues or “unacceptable behaviors. Based on the gaps in documentation and non-existent records of accommodation dialogue with Ms. Merritt, negligence can be proven. The specific named respondents took no active role to engage in the alternative approaches of possible ADHD.

The recorded evaluation shows that the specific respondents identified behaviors indicating a need for mental health or disability accommodations in the workplace. Despite their legal obligation, they failed to inquire about how these issues were linked to performance concerns. They did not engage in alternative approaches for possible ADHD before recommending employment termination at Covenant House Toronto. The lack of documentation and accommodation dialogue with Ms. Merritt points to potential negligence.
Can you provide more details on any other instances where accommodations were requested or denied?

• *.*.* Duty to inquire about accommodation needs, Accommodation providers must attempt to help a person who is clearly unwell or perceived to have a mental health disability or addiction by inquiring further to see if the person has needs related to a disability and offering assistance and accommodation. [*]

The recorded evaluation shows that the respondents identified behaviors indicating a need for mental health or disability accommodations but failed to inquire about or provide necessary accommodations. This negligence, especially before recommending termination at Covenant House Toronto, could be considered discriminatory under Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Could you provide more details on any other instances where accommodations were requested or denied?

Section * of the Code prohibits discrimination that results from requirements, qualifications or factors that may appear neutral but that have an adverse effect on people identified by Code grounds. Section * allows an organization to show that a requirement, qualification or factor that results in discrimination is nevertheless reasonable and bona fide (legitimate). In the case of Ms. Merritt- the specific respondents were able to use the organization’s current evaluation process during the probationary period to terminate employment based on poor performance. However, there is a notable absence of internal policy guiding managers and mid-level employees on their responsibilities to inquire about performance issues linked to mental health and disability before making termination decisions. This lack of policy creates potential grounds for discrimination, particularly affecting employees with disabilities.

In Ontario, any termination that appears to be based on disability, without considering accommodations, can potentially be discriminatory under Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
- Section *: Prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
- Duty to Inquire: Employers must consider accommodations for disabilities.
- Negligence: Failure to inquire about or provide accommodations despite recognizing the need can be seen as negligence.
Can you provide more details on any other instances where accommodations were requested or denied?

rewrite

Rewritten Response:
The recorded evaluation shows the respondents identified behaviors indicating a need for mental health or disability accommodations. Despite their legal obligations, they failed to inquire or provide necessary accommodations before recommending employment termination at Covenant House Toronto. This lack of documentation and accommodation dialogue with Ms. Merritt points to potential negligence.
Can you provide more details on any other instances where accommodations were requested or denied?

rewrite : Section * of the Code prohibits discrimination that results from requirements, qualifications or factors that may appear neutral but that have an adverse effect on people identified by Code grounds. Section * allows an organization to show that a requirement, qualification or factor that results in discrimination is nevertheless reasonable and bona fide (legitimate). In the case of Ms. Merritt- the specific respondents were able to use the organization’s current evaluation process during the probationary period to terminate employment based on poor performance. However, there is a notable absence of internal policy guiding managers and mid-level employees on their responsibilities to inquire about performance issues linked to mental health and disability before making termination decisions. This lack of policy creates potential grounds for discrimination, particularly affecting employees with disabilities.

Section * of the Code prohibits discrimination from neutral requirements that adversely affect those identified by Code grounds. It allows organizations to justify such requirements if they are reasonable and bona fide. In Ms. Merritt's case, the respondents terminated her based on poor performance during the probationary period without a policy guiding inquiries into performance issues linked to mental health and disabilities. This lack of policy may have led to potential discrimination against employees with disabilities.
Can you provide details on any specific accommodations requested or denied?

rewrite Section * of the Code prohibits discrimination from neutral requirements that adversely affect those identified by Code grounds. It allows organizations to justify such requirements if they are reasonable and bona fide. In Ms. Merritt's case, the organization covenant house Toronto has a policy during the probationary period that their mid-employees can conduct an evaluation at any point to determine meeting performance standards and terminate employees based on not meeting performance standards. This neutral requirement enabled the specific named respondents to adversely impact MS, Merritt a person identified by Code grounds using the probationary period policy. The evaluation process did not consider her ADHD disability or the impact of not providing accommodations leading to unfair treatment, however the organization neutral policy of termination while within the probation period consisted of these motatives of discrimination as neutral requirements.

Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination from neutral requirements that adversely affect those identified by Code grounds. Organizations can justify such requirements if they are reasonable and bona fide. In Ms. Merritt's case, the Covenant House Toronto policy allows mid-employees to evaluate performance and terminate employment during the probationary period. This neutral requirement negatively impacted Ms. Merritt, who has ADHD, as the evaluation process did not consider her need for accommodations, leading to potential discrimination.
Can you provide details on any specific accommodations requested or denied?

can explain more how termination with cause violates section *

Sure! Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination arising from neutral requirements that adversely affect individuals identified by Code grounds, such as disabilities. A termination process that appears neutral but fails to accommodate disabilities can seem discriminatory. If an employer does not consider necessary accommodations for an employee's disability and terminates the employee based on performance issues linked to that disability, it could violate Section *.
Can you provide more details on any specific accommodations requested or denied?

can you explain how employers can use netural requirements as discrimentation

Sure! Here’s how neutral requirements can be used as discrimination under Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code:
- Neutral Requirements: Policies or practices that apply equally to everyone but have a disproportionate adverse effect on individuals identified by Code grounds.
- Adverse Effect: These requirements unintentionally discriminate against people with disabilities, such as ADHD, by not accommodating their specific needs.
- Example: A performance evaluation process that does not consider or accommodate the challenges posed by an employee's disability, leading to unfair termination decisions.
- Violation: If the employer fails to accommodate disabilities during evaluations, it could result in discrimination, violating Section *.
Could you provide any specific examples or details on the neutral requirements in your case?

The respondents and the organization (Covenant House Toronto) knew of her ADHD disability before termination of her employment but the specific named respondents based termination of her employment on performance linked to disability. The evaluation and probationary period without a policy guiding inquiries into performance issues linked to mental health and disabilities. This lack of policy may have led to the potential discrimination against Ms. Merritt with ADHD disabilities. can you explain how this violates

Sure! Here’s how this situation potentially violates the Ontario Human Rights Code:
- Section *: Prohibits discrimination in employment based on disability.
- Section *: Prohibits neutral requirements that disproportionately affect individuals with disabilities.
- Failure to Accommodate: Not considering accommodations for ADHD during evaluations is discriminatory.
Can you provide more details on the termination process and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

rewrite : The respondents and the organization (Covenant House Toronto) knew of her ADHD disability before termination of her employment but the specific named respondents based termination of her employment on performance linked to disability. The evaluation and probationary period without a policy guiding inquiries into performance issues linked to mental health and disabilities. This lack of policy may have led to the potential discrimination against Ms. Merritt with ADHD disabilities.

The respondents and Covenant House Toronto were aware of Ms. Merritt's ADHD before terminating her employment. The specific respondents based the termination on performance issues linked to her disability. The lack of a policy for addressing performance issues related to mental health and disabilities during the evaluation and probationary periods may have led to potential discrimination against Ms. Merritt.
Can you provide more details on the termination process and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

REWRITE • The specific named respondents Manager Candice Cosburn and Intern-supervisor Kendra Sandy mention- Jodyann has declined to collaborate with her colleagues, which is not conductive to this environment. This statement can be deemed discriminatory because it unfairly targets behaviors that are a direct result of ADHD condition. In the case of Ms. Merritt, this recorded behavior is directly linked to ADHD. Individuals with ADHD may act impulsively, which can lead to inappropriate comments or actions in social situations. This impulsiveness can make it difficult for them to gauge social cues and respond appropriately, potentially causing misunderstandings or conflict. [*.*.* Duty to inquire about accommodation needs, Accommodation providers must attempt to help a person who is clearly unwell or perceived to have a mental health disability or addiction by inquiring further to see if the person has needs related to a disability and offering assistance and accommodation. [*]

The specific named respondents, Manager Candice Cosburn and Intern-supervisor Kendra Sandy, mentioned that Jodyann declined to collaborate with colleagues, which is not conducive to the workplace environment. This statement can be discriminatory as it unfairly targets behaviors resulting from ADHD. Ms. Merritt's behavior is linked to ADHD, which can cause impulsive actions and difficulty in social interactions.
Under the Ontario Human Rights Code:
- Section * prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
- Section * prohibits discrimination from neutral requirements that disproportionately affect individuals with disabilities.
- Employers have a duty to inquire about and accommodate disabilities.

~Contact Information: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Phone: *-*-*-*
Website: www.ohrc.on.ca

Can you provide more details on any accommodations that were requested or denied during this period?

BRING UP OTHER SECTIONS THIS VIOLATES

Sure! Here are some other relevant sections of the Ontario Human Rights Code that may be violated:
- Section *: Prohibits discrimination in employment based on disability.
- Section *: Prohibits neutral requirements that disproportionately affect individuals identified by Code grounds, such as disabilities.
- Section *: Requires that accommodation be provided unless it causes undue hardship to the employer.
Could you provide more details on how the termination process was handled and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

what section says employers have a duty to inquire when behaviours might lead to mental health

In Ontario, employers have a duty to inquire about accommodation needs under the Ontario Human Rights Code, specifically:
- Section *: Requires employers to accommodate disabilities unless it causes undue hardship. This includes the duty to inquire when behaviors might indicate a mental health issue.
- Section *: Prohibits discrimination from neutral requirements that adversely affect individuals identified by Code grounds.
Can you provide more details on the termination process and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

what section prevents discrimentaion from mental health

In Ontario, discrimination based on mental health is addressed by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Relevant sections include:
- Section *: Prohibits discrimination in employment based on disability, which includes mental health conditions.
- Section *: Prohibits neutral requirements that disproportionately affect individuals with disabilities.
- Section *: Requires employers to accommodate disabilities unless it causes undue hardship.
Can you provide more details on the termination process and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

bring up duty to inquire

In Ontario, employers have a duty to inquire about accommodation needs if an employee's behavior suggests a mental health issue. This is covered under:
- Section *: Requires employers to accommodate disabilities unless it causes undue hardship. This includes the duty to inquire about potential mental health issues.
- Section *: Prohibits discrimination in employment based on disability.
- Section *: Prohibits neutral requirements that disproportionately impact individuals with disabilities.
Can you provide more details on the termination process and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

• Section * States that someone cannot be judged incapable of performing the essential duties

Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code states that someone cannot be judged incapable of performing essential duties unless accommodation is provided to the point of undue hardship. This means employers must make necessary accommodations for disabilities before determining an employee's capability.
Could you provide more details on any specific accommodations that were requested or denied?

rewrtie In the case of Ms. Merritt – The organization Covenant House Toronto and the named respondents were made aware of the disability before terminating her employment on August 29th, *. Before terminating her employment the performance evaluation was not adjusted to accommodate ADHD, let alone did all parties engage in the accommodation process or satisfy duties to inquire.

Requirements under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities state that States Parties, including Canada, must take steps to make sure that people with disabilities are provided with accommodation (for example, to ensure equal access to justice, education and employment).[*] Not willing to accommodate ADHD suggests that the employer is not fully recognizing the impact of ADHD on performance. They could be overlooking the potential for reasonable adjustments that would allow the employee to thrive in their role. If the employer fails to engage in a dialogue about these accommodations or ignores behaviors showing need for support, it could lead to claims of discrimination or violation of the employee's rights under laws that protect individuals with disabilities.

In the case of Ms. Merritt, Covenant House Toronto and the named respondents were aware of her ADHD before terminating her employment on August *, *. However, the performance evaluation did not accommodate her ADHD, and the parties involved did not engage in the accommodation process or fulfill their duty to inquire about her needs.
- Section *: Prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
- Section *: Prohibits neutral requirements that disproportionately affect individuals with disabilities.
- Section *: Requires accommodation for disabilities unless it causes undue hardship.

~Contact Information: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Phone: *-*-*-*
Website: www.ohrc.on.ca

Can you provide more details on any specific accommodations that were requested or denied during her employment?

rewrite: Requirements under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities state that States Parties, including Canada, must take steps to make sure that people with disabilities are provided with accommodation (for example, to ensure equal access to justice, education and employment).[*] Not willing to accommodate ADHD suggests that the employer is not fully recognizing the impact of ADHD on performance. They could be overlooking the potential for reasonable adjustments that would allow the employee to thrive in their role. If the employer fails to engage in a dialogue about these accommodations or ignores behaviors showing need for support, it could lead to claims of discrimination or violation of the employee's rights under laws that protect individuals with disabilities.

Under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Canada must ensure accommodations for people with disabilities, including ADHD, in areas like justice, education, and employment. Failure to accommodate ADHD may indicate the employer isn't recognizing its impact on performance and may lead to discrimination claims.
Can you provide more details on any accommodations that were requested or denied during the employment period?

rewrite : • In the case of Ms. Merritt – the organisiation (Covenant House Toronto) and the specific named respondents did not give any thought to issue of accommodation and take steps to accommodate her before termination of employment Under the Ontario Human Right Code Section * States that someone cannot be judged incapable of performing the essential duties of a job, of being a tenant, or taking part in a service, without efforts to accommodate the person: In the case of Ms. Merritt. The evaluation completed on August 29th, *, was used as explanation for poor performance issue leading to termination of employment with the organization (Covenant house Toronto). Ms. Merritt was evaluated solely on social dynamic challenges, without record notes considering a broader level of their ADHD disability and without being provided with ADHD accommodation before termination of employment.

In the case of Ms. Merritt, Covenant House Toronto and the named respondents did not consider accommodations before terminating her employment. According to the Ontario Human Rights Code, Section *, a person cannot be judged incapable of performing essential duties without accommodation efforts. The evaluation on August *, *, cited poor performance linked to social dynamics without considering her ADHD and without providing necessary accommodations.
Can you provide more details on any accommodations that were requested or denied during her employment?

rewrite: • In the case of Ms. Merritt, Covenant House Toronto and the named respondents were aware of her ADHD before terminating employment on August *, *. However, the performance evaluation was not accommodated to adapt ADHD at the time of termination. While the parties involved did not engage in the accommodation process or fulfill their duty to inquire about her needs. If a performance evaluation is not adjusted to accommodate an employee's disability needs, it can violate Section *, which typically addresses the requirement for employers to accommodate employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. This section emphasizes that evaluations should be fair and consider the individual circumstances of employees, including their disabilities.

In the case of Ms. Merritt, Covenant House Toronto and the named respondents were aware of her ADHD before terminating her employment on August *, *. However, the performance evaluation did not accommodate her ADHD, and the parties involved did not engage in the accommodation process or fulfill their duty to inquire about her needs. This could violate Section *, which requires employers to accommodate employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. Evaluations must be fair and consider the individual circumstances of employees, including their disabilities.
Can you provide more details on any accommodations that were requested or denied during her employment?

rewrite • In the case of Ms. Merritt, The specific named respondents Management Candice Cosburn and Intern-supervisor Kendra Sandy submitted her termination to the organization (Covenant House Toronto) on August 29th, *. A probationary period evaluation was completed by the specific named respondents, to support their submission to terminate employment. The evaluation justified Ms. Merritt was not meeting performing standards. Specifically, the respondents Manager Candice Coburn and Intern-supervisor formed an evaluation that focuses on poor performance linking her to their disability, such as social challenges establishing professional relationships. Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code states that someone cannot be judged incapable of performing essential duties unless accommodation is provided to the point of undue hardship. This means employers must make necessary accommodations for disabilities before determining an employee's capability.

In the case of Ms. Merritt, the specific named respondents, Manager Candice Cosburn and Intern-supervisor Kendra Sandy, submitted her termination to Covenant House Toronto on August *, *. A probationary period evaluation was completed, justifying her termination based on poor performance linked to her disability, including social challenges in establishing professional relationships.
Key Points:
- Section * of the Ontario Human Rights Code: States that someone cannot be judged incapable of performing essential duties unless accommodation is provided to the point of undue hardship.
- Employers must make necessary accommodations for disabilities before determining an employee's capability.
Can you provide more details on any accommodations that were requested or denied during her employment?

rewrite In the case of Ms. Merritt, Covenant House Toronto Ms. Merrit was diagnosed with ADHD (inactive attention deficit disorder in * as a youth. Her ADHD-I disability was disclosed to the organization Covenant House Toronto, as well as to the management and internship supervisor of the named personal respondent. This disclosure occurred in response to concerns raised regarding workplace harassment experienced by Ms. Merritt from a youth mental health worker contracted by Youthdale Mental Health Services. Despite these disclosures, both Covenant House Toronto and Youthdale Mental Health Services failed to take appropriate measures to address the claims of harassment. Furthermore, Covenant House Toronto did not fulfill its requirements under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In the case of Ms. Merritt at Covenant House Toronto, she was diagnosed with ADHD (inactive attention deficit disorder) in * as a youth. This disability was disclosed to Covenant House Toronto, as well as to the management and internship supervisor. This disclosure was made in response to concerns about workplace harassment from a youth mental health worker contracted by Youthdale Mental Health Services. Despite these disclosures, both Covenant House Toronto and Youthdale Mental Health Services failed to address the harassment claims appropriately. Furthermore, Covenant House Toronto did not meet its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, specifically regarding their duty to inquire about accommodation needs, even if not specifically requested.
Can you provide more details on how the harassment was handled by Covenant House Toronto?

[*] See section *.*.* entitled “Duty to inquire about accommodation needs” for information on when an organization is expected to inquire about accommodation needs, even when a person may not have made a specific request.

In Ontario, organizations have a duty to inquire about accommodation needs under the Ontario Human Rights Code, specifically:
- Section *: Requires employers to accommodate disabilities unless it causes undue hardship. This includes the duty to inquire when behaviors might indicate a mental health issue.
- Section *: Prohibits discrimination in employment based on disability.
- Section *: Prohibits neutral requirements that disproportionately impact individuals with disabilities.
It sounds like Ms. Merritt's case involves multiple potential violations. Can you provide more details on how the harassment was handled by Covenant House Toronto?

~Contact Information: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Phone: *-*-*-*
Website: www.ohrc.on.ca

rewrite : • Accommodation providers must attempt to help a person who is clearly unwell or perceived to have a mental health disability or addiction by inquiring further to see if the person has needs related to a disability and offering assistance and accommodation.[*] In the case of Ms. Merritt- For the duration of her employment there were a numerous change of managerial roles and intern-supervisor while Ms. Merritt was “trained” by various staff members at the time of termination Ms. Merritt did not finish her training. The specific named respondents made no attempts to accommodate or provide progressive management to address the evaluation before termination of employment on August 29th, *. If the employer imposes serious sanctions or terminates the employee for poor performance, without any progressive performance management and attempts to accommodate, these actions may be found to have violated the Code.[*]

Accommodation providers must help a person who is clearly unwell or perceived to have a mental health disability or addiction by inquiring further to see if the person has needs related to a disability and offering assistance and accommodation.
In Ms. Merritt's case, during her employment, there were numerous managerial and intern-supervisor changes, and she was trained by various staff members without completing her training. The specific respondents did not attempt to accommodate or provide progressive management before terminating her employment on August *, *. If an employer imposes serious sanctions or terminates an employee for poor performance without progressive performance management and attempts to accommodate, these actions may violate the Code.
Can you provide more details on any other accommodations that were requested or denied during her employment?

rewrite • I am requesting if the Tribunal finds merit to grant this request and if disability discrimination in the context of performance evaluation , which was used to create a negative assessment of abilities leading to termination of employment. The Tribunal grant a stay of employment with retroactive wages to date and until the proceeding decision in this matter.

I am requesting the Tribunal to consider if there is merit in granting this request based on disability discrimination within the performance evaluation, leading to a negative assessment of abilities and subsequent termination. I seek a stay of employment with retroactive wages until a decision is made in this matter.
Can you provide more details on the termination process and any accommodations that were requested or denied?

write a request for an internm remedy stay of employment

---
Dear Tribunal,
I am writing to request an interim remedy for a stay of employment for Ms. Merritt, who was terminated by Covenant House Toronto on August *, *. Ms. Merritt was diagnosed with ADHD, a condition disclosed to her employer and supervisors. Despite this, the performance evaluation leading to her termination did not accommodate her disability, nor did the organization engage in the accommodation process or fulfill their duty to inquire about her needs.
Relevant sections of the Ontario Human Rights Code include:
- Section *: Prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
- Section *: Prohibits neutral requirements that disproportionately affect individuals with disabilities.
- Section *: Requires employers to accommodate disabilities unless it causes undue hardship.
Covenant House Toronto's failure to consider necessary accommodations and the lack of policy guiding inquiries into performance issues linked to mental health and disabilities likely resulted in discrimination against Ms. Merritt. Given these circumstances, I request the Tribunal grant an interim remedy for a stay of employment with retroactive wages until a final decision is made in this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]

Disability Based Termination Concerns

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats