Even when an employer believes it has done everything right in accommodating a disabled employee, the Human Rights Tribunal may still find fault.

Such was the case for Revera Retirement, a nursing home facility operating in Toronto, that employed Louisa Campbell as a health-care aide. Campbell became unable to perform her job, when a medical condition caused the skin on her legs to swell, precluding prolonged walking or standing.

The employer, properly trained, understood its duty to accommodate. But finding Campbell a useful job was no simple task. Her physician was characteristically unhelpful since his notes delineated only what she could not do. Campbell’s notion that the company could stitch together some easy job assisting with recreational activities such as bingo calling was simply not viable.

After reviewing their inventory of jobs at the facility, the company, with union participation, devised what appeared to be a perfect solution: She would sit and fold laundry. In this way, housekeepers would bring laundry to the laundry area and a stool would be provided so that she did not have to stand.

Campbell, however, refused to co-operate with this plan. She produced the invariable note from her doctor claiming she was physically incapable of performing even this task, allegedly because of leg pain.

Exasperated, Revera management said it had provided perfect accommodation and if she did not return to work, her employment would be treated as abandoned.

Campbell responded with yet another note from her doctor saying that she could not perform this job but offering to do any other modified work.

The Tribunal agreed the employer had reviewed all potential jobs in good faith. Adjudicator Jay Segment noted Revera had no job other than the laundry attendant to offer Campbell. But, he concluded, the company had still jumped the gun.

While the doctor’s certificate was vague and gave no reason for his assessment, the employer was not qualified to second-guess his evaluation.

The adjudicator said that the appropriate course of action would have been for Revera to have asked the doctor for more information about Campbell’s condition. Because Revera did not do so, the tribunal awarded general damages to Campbell despite agreeing there was no job she was capable of performing.

The little, albeit scant, solace employers can draw from this decision lies in the road map to reduce their exposure when an employee claims disability:

Ascertain its degree Get the employee to produce medical evidence as to specifically how their condition affects their ability to meet the specific demands of their job. Do not be satisfied with generic doctors’ notes that tend to be handed out almost whimsically. Even courts and adjudicators are increasingly skeptical of them.

Devise tenable accommodation The employer was not expected to create work of little value.

Require full employee co-operation Employees have an obligation to meaningfully participate with the employer in developing a plan for accommodation and to not throw up roadblocks. If Revera had asked for specifics from the doctor or enlisted its own medical expert, it would have succeeded.

Document your efforts Revera kept its damages down because it could demonstrate how it reviewed and evaluated its jobs inventory and determined there were no other suitable jobs.

Have a peer debate the employee’s physician Leave the assessment of a condition and ability to work to a disability carrier or your selected doctors who will be recognized by the tribunal as capable of challenging a medical assessment.

See more about claims of disability from the Financial Post.