Case analysis: Joe Carmichael vs ChemRight University of WaterlooHRM 200RA1

Document Content and Description Below

Joe Carmichael filed a discrimination lawsuit against a chemical distribution company called ChemRight. He was not offered a position at ChemRight because his genetic test revealed that he was 300% ... more likely to become ill due to chemical exposure during the work. In ChemRight’s defense, they can claim that it is a bona fide occupational requirement. According to the Meiorin case, there are “three criteria that are now used to assess if the discrimination qualifies as a bona fide occupational requirement” (Dessler & Chhinzer & Cole, 2013). ChemRight can justify not offering the job by showing that it meets the criteria. ChemRight can show that their decision was legitimate, was made in a good faith, and it was impossible to accommodate Joe’s needs (Dessler & Chhinzer & Cole, 2013). Overall, ChemRight can use the bona fide occupational requirement to justify their action. On the other hand, Joe Carmichael can argue his side using the concept of undue hardship. “Employers are expected to accommodate to the point of undue hardship” (Dessler & Chhinzer & Cole, 2013) and Joe can claim that ChemRight violated the human rights legislation by failing to “make every reasonable effort to accommodate” him (Dessler & Chhinzer & Cole, 2013). In addition, Joe can claim that ChemRight also violated the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) by discriminating based on disability because the CHRA “protects individuals whose genetic information reveals the risk of disease and therefore perceived or imputed disability” (Canadian Coalition for Genetic Fairness). Overall, Joe can use the concept of undue hardship and the CHRA in his defense [Show More]

Last updated: 1 year ago

Preview 1 out of 4 pages