Noble motives may elicit a heavenly reward. But they never spare employers from the wrath of human rights commissions.

When Holly Graham, a mobile patrol security officer with Ottawa-based Response Security & Investigations, unexpectedly became pregnant, she informed the owner of the company, Dennis Condie. Condie leaped into action, removing Graham from the schedule, he said, because the position was hazardous to her and her baby. Graham was told to obtain a medical note from her doctor confirming she could not do the job safely and then to apply for short-term disability benefits with Employment Insurance.

Graham was shocked. She had a good job record and only recently had been promoted to a supervisory job. She did not feel disabled from doing her job and desperately needed the income. Compounding her dire circumstances, EI informed her she did not qualify for sick benefits and even if she did, it would reduce her maternity-leave benefits.

But Condie would not change his mind. Left with no choice, Graham found administrative work with another security company. When Condie learned she was employed by a competitor, he fired her.

Undeterred, Graham responded by launching a human rights proceeding alleging she was discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy.

Finding no evidence to support the employer’s argument that its decision was based on an assessment of the risk to Graham and her baby, adjudicator Jay Sengupta of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal determined the employer had made stereotyped assumptions.

The job did not require that she engage in physical contact at the first sign of trouble. As an officer, she was to simply alert the police.

Condie’s refusal to restore her hours and his ultimate decision to terminate her employment occurred solely because she was pregnant and represented an egregious violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Graham was awarded $20,000 in damages for loss of dignity, based on the serious impact the employer’s decisions had on her during a vulnerable stage in her life. The tribunal also directed that she be fully compensated for loss of income.

This decision is instructive as to the approach employers should take in dealing with cases of accommodation:

Avoid assumptions Just because an employee is pregnant or has a medical condition does not mean they are not physically capable of doing a job. Do not compel an employee to give up their work and embark on sick leave based on your perception.

Individually assess Engage in an individual evaluation of that employee and her abilities and, again, avoid stereotypes.

Elicit employee co-operation The duty to accommodate is a two-way street. An employee must co-operate with the employer in assessing ability to carry out his or her functions. Condie could have met with Graham and worked out a plan to accommodate her until she went on leave.

Educate staff It is no defence to a human rights complaint that other employees are reluctant to work with a pregnant or disabled employee.

Institute a policy Make it clear you are committed to working with staff on developing accommodation plans. This ensures female and disabled staff they will not be penalized as a result of their condition.

Reposted from the Financial Post.