Canada: Ontario Court Adopts Expansive Interpretation Of Family Status Protection Under The Ontario Human Rights Code

The Superior Court of Ontario recently adopted the test for family status discrimination as outlined in the seminal decision,Johnstone v Canada (Boarder Services), 2014 FCA 110 [“Johnstone”]. In Johnstone the Federal Court of Appeal found that family status includes parental responsibilities such as childcare obligations, which we previously blogged about here.

In Patridge v Botony Dental Corp. [2015] OJ No 226, Lee Patridge (“Patridge”) worked as a dental hygienist with the defendant company – Botony […]

By | February 13th, 2015 ||

Balancing Life’s Responsibilities: Canadian Human Rights Developments In The Accommodation Of Family Status

With an increase in the number of dual-income households in Canada, it is not surprising that employers are facing growing demands from workers for flexible work regimes that allow for the fulfillment of childcare obligations. As many parents struggle to meet both work and family obligations, Canada’s legal perspective on the duty to accommodate has expanded, placing an increased onus on employers to accommodate family status, both federally under the Canadian Human Rights Act, […]

By | February 13th, 2015 ||

United States: The California Supreme Court Holds That Certain Security Guards Must Be Paid To Sleep

On December 31, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (Case No. S212704) that security guards who work shifts of 24 or more hours under Wage Order 4 must be compensated for their sleep time.  The Court also held that, under the particular facts of the case, the security guards were required to be paid for their “on-call” time.

CPS Security Solutions provides security services to various clients.  Generally, […]

By | February 13th, 2015 ||