A-367

Employment Law

1
Contents
ASSIGNMENT-1.......................................................................................................................3
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Assignment-2.............................................................................................................................6
A.................................................................................................................................................6
(i)................................................................................................................................................6
(ii)...............................................................................................................................................8
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................9
References..................................................................................................................................9

2
ASSIGNMENT-1

Introduction
When a person is employed by a company in Ontario, they are not allowed to be terminated
from their position without the employee's agreement or a clear indication that they are no
longer obligated by their contract. It is permissible for an employee to treat his or her
employment as terminated if he or she feels that his or her employment conditions have been
materially altered without the employee's approval. The employee's departure will be viewed
as a termination of employment rather than a resignation. Companies that are found to have
constructively terminated an employee must compensate the employee by providing a
severance package. A significant shift in the nature of the work relationship is required for a
change in conditions of employment to be classified as constructive dismissal. Minor
modifications will not lead to a constructive dismissal if they are implemented. Belinda ' job
responsibilities and requirements might be changed by their employers in order to better
operate their business and keep up with the always shifting market. On the balance of
probability, the employee is responsible for proving that he or she was constructively
discharged from his or her workplace. There are a number of reasons why an employee who
is unable to prove that they were fired in an appropriate manner may be considered to have
resigned from their employment. As a result of their departure, the employee will be
ineligible for a severance payment from their employer. It is possible that plaintiffs in
constructive dismissal cases will be held accountable for the legal expenditures expended by
their employers. Prior to resigning and filing a claim for constructive dismissal, any
employee considering quitting should consult with an employment lawyer who specialises in
this area. If other options are investigated, it is possible that the employee's rights and
interests will be better safeguarded.

3
In Ontario, a severance payout for an employee who is fired for good reason does not rise or
reduce based on whether or not the individual was constructively dismissed. If you were fired
without reason, your severance compensation will be the same regardless of whether or not
your employer informed you of your termination immediately after you were terminated.
Employees who are terminated because of hazardous or unjust working conditions may be
entitled to additional compensation, such as compensatory, punitive, or human rights
damages, depending on the circumstances. If one party fails to meet its responsibilities under
an agreement, the other party may be entitled to dissolve the agreement and seek damages.
Employers that make significant changes to an employee's employment, work environment,
or salary without first obtaining their consent are in breach of their legal obligations.

a) If an employee doesn't accept an employer's offer to cut their pay, the company might give
them legal notice that their employment contract is over. The company might then give the
worker a new contract. If the employer doesn't give enough notice before terminating the
employee, the employee has the right to ask for the original contract terms.
Belinda is regularly forced to resign when her employer makes a substantial change on her
own without consulting her beforehand. People who do not leave the premises within that
time frame are presumed to be in agreement with the decision made. Unfortunately, finding a
"fair" amount of time can be challenging. This is a grey area in terms of the legal system. A
fair length of time is given to the employee before he or she is forced to make a decision
about their future employment. An employee's decision to accept or reject a change will be
influenced by the nature of the change and the employee's personal circumstances. Suppose
an employee's earnings have been significantly decreased; in this case, they may be required
to reply swiftly. In the majority of cases, an individual whose work has suffered substantial
changes will be given more time to adjust before making a decision on their future. If a
person has been subjected to sexual harassment at work for a lengthy period of time, they
may be entitled for constructive dismissal under certain circumstances. Unacceptable
behaviour, such as physical or sexual harassment, may make it impossible for an employee to
continue working.
b) As compensation, Belinda may be obliged to stay with their employers who have been
constructively terminated. Accepting the idea of "re-employment" (the obligation to accept
re-employment is discussed in detail in the mitigation chapter). To minimise their damages,
the court may declare that an employee should have remained on the job if they can show that
they were constructively fired. Re-employment will be evaluated by the court using an
unbiased criterion to determine if it is reasonable. Several considerations will be considered
by a judge when determining whether or not an employee must continue working for their
former company. Constructive dismissal may be necessitated by fair business restructuring or
financial burden on the organisation. Compensation for damages
c) It is necessary for an employee who leaves and claims constructive dismissal to provide
evidence that the claim is plausible. Real-world situations involving constructive dismissal do
occur. The circumstances of the case will be examined by the court to determine whether or
not there was a constructive dismissal. The previous and new jobs and salaries of the
employee will be compared. In order to determine whether or not there was a constructive
dismissal, the court will look at certain circumstances. According to this method, a

4
"reasonable" third party in the employee's shoes would consider the change significant
enough to alter the employment relationship. Regardless of what the employee thinks, it
doesn't matter. A company's motivation for altering an employee's job specifications on its
own is rarely relevant. Because the employer's actions can terminate the employment contract
even if the employer does not wish to do so. However, the employer's choice to make a
significant modification to the employee's employment may still be beneficial. As long as the
modification was made in bad faith, the court might require the employer to pay more than
merely wrongful dismissal damages.
It's possible that the employee was fired in a "constructive dismissal," in which the
employer's arguments are examined by the judge. When determining whether a
constructively terminated employee should have lost less money by working for the firm, the
employer's motive for making the move should be taken into account. If they fail to establish
constructive dismissal on the balance of probabilities, they will be regarded as having
resigned. A former employee cannot sue the company for damages. In many cases, lessors
are also responsible for some of the legal expenses incurred by the corporation to which they
are employed. It is extremely difficult for an employee who quits and files a lawsuit claiming
constructive dismissal to get back on their feet. In order to avoid losing their lawsuit, they are
doing this.

It's risky to leave your job and say that you were fired for good reason. When it comes to
your job, you should never do it without consulting a lawyer. The business usually says that
the employee did not get a constructive dismissal and that they should not get a severance pay
because they quit. The person should make sure that any job changes are well-documented.
Even if the employer had a good reason to fire the employee, the person should have kept
their job to keep their losses to a minimum. Rather than quit and claim constructive dismissal,
an employee should try to get his or her employer to end the working relationship. They do
things to get fired without having a good reason. A severance payment is paid even if you
don't show that you were unfairly fired. An employment lawyer often helps people adjust to
changes at work. Attorneys are good at teaching employees how to get fired without cause.
Each case is different. The employer doesn't know that the employee wants to leave. They
keep up the good work. That doesn't mean they don't think the company will go in a certain
direction. Most constructive dismissals work because the relationship at work has already
broken down. It is especially good when the employer looks like they are changing the
employee's job terms to make them want to quit. The lawyer will help the employee by
writing emails to the employer that encourage them to end the job. Execution is the key to
being effective. Taking action to force the employer to end the work relationship is usually
better than resigning and trying to get a good job. If the changes were not severe enough, the
employee would not get severance pay.

 If an employee quits because they were constructively fired, the company should
think about inviting them back to work. If the employee doesn't come back to work,
the employer may be able to say that the employee didn't make up for lost wages and
isn't entitled to wrongful dismissal damages.
5
  If the change and how it was made didn't make the employee feel bad, he or she is
more likely to keep working to make up for the lost money.
 Modifications to a work relationship that are carefully handled can lessen the
possibility of large-scale dismissals and litigation expenses. Every circumstance is
distinct from the others. There is no difference between a constructive dismissal and a
regular dismissal. The goal of the employer's investigation is to determine the
possibility of a constructive dismissal.
 Providing the employee with clear and unambiguous notice that the change will take
effect on a specified date in the future may assist you avoid a constructive dismissal,
which is when an employee is fired without cause. The individual should be given the
same amount of time to leave their place of employment as if they had been fired.
When the notice period expires, the terms and conditions of the employee's
employment will change.

The Court in Belinda said that Farber was still the main source for constructive dismissal law,
but it tried to make the law clearer by defining two types of criteria for constructive
dismissal. In this case, constructive dismissal has taken place if either branch meets its
requirements. The first one has two. The court must look first to see if the employer's single
act broke a written or implied rule in the employment contract. It would be a constructive
violation if someone got fired or had their pay cut because they did something bad. The Court
said that if the employee agrees with the change, it is not a constructive dismissal.

If there is a breach, the court must then decide if a reasonable person in the employee's
position would think that the breach would change an important part of the contract. A small
breach that doesn't change a contract clause doesn't count as constructive dismissal.
Consequential dismissal happens when a series of actions show that the employer wanted to
end the job. An employee who claims constructive dismissal because of a bad work
environment would fall under this branch. The employee doesn't have to show that the
change broke a written or implied contract rule, like a pay cut.
To decide whether an employee has been constructively fired, the court must first determine
whether the employer's unilateral modifications fundamentally affected the employee's
contract of employment. This means the judge must consider whether a reasonable person in
the employee's position would have believed the offer materially altered the employment
contract's basic conditions.
The employee's willingness to take less than what he or she was entitled to is not conclusive.

Assignment-2
A
(i)
Other forms of discrimination, such as anti-Muslim sentiment and even politics in Northern
Ireland's Catholic-Protestant conflict, are more harmful than religious discrimination because
they are intertwined with other forms of prejudice. Equality Act 2010 Section 10 protects

6
religious and spiritual beliefs. Article 9 of the Human Rights Act of 1998 was enshrined in
UK law, and government justifications for this Act suggest it provides wide protection. The
Human Rights Act of 1998 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. As stated in Article
9 of the Human Rights Act of 1998, everyone should be entitled to express their thoughts,
feelings, and beliefs in whatever way they see fit. Having 9 on hand is a nice thing, though.
Even if you don't believe in a religion, you have the freedom to speak out about it. A religion
or belief must be restricted, however, in order to preserve the rights and liberties of others.
This qualification is critical to provide when a religious belief is invoked to support
discrimination against or interference with the rights of others. Some people believe that
teaching assistants should not be able to conceal their faces because of their religious
convictions. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that the employee's religion did
not play a role in her termination for refusing to remove her face veil after she was fired for
refusing to do so. According to the EAT, it doesn't matter what faith someone belongs to if
they wear a veil over their face.
If indirect discrimination in general and religious prejudice in particular are to be tolerated,
the justification must be persuasive. You can attain proportionality if you examine your goals
and the strategies you utilise to achieve them. There are two considerations to consider when
determining proportionality and where the means should be to achieve goals. To justify an
action, it must be proven that the selected action is the only viable choice and that it fulfils a
true business requirement. Discriminatory behaviours, such as those based on religion, need
justification. A British Airways uniform code forbade Christian employees from wearing
crosses, but Eweida couldn't prove she was singled out because of her religious convictions;
so, the court determined that she was the only one who objected to the regulation. Indirect
discrimination was not a factor in this, but rather a personal choice (ECtHR). There was no
difference between the two schools. Working with children necessitates a thorough
understanding of the individuals they are interacting with on a daily basis. In contrast, many
other Muslim pupils at the school had no problem with the requirement that they wear school
uniforms. The European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, was willing to consider
her case and ultimately granted her victory (ECtHR). Disrespect for another person's dignity
is now included in the EA 2012 definition of harassment. "Unwanted behaviour connected to
a protected attribute that hurts another person's dignity" is prohibited under Section 26 of the
Act. Being self-respecting means never putting yourself in the same category as someone
else. It is simpler to show indirect discrimination based on religion than direct discrimination,
as previously stated. It is difficult to argue that equal treatment can be attained by depriving a
group of a benefit since equality as dignity elevates the importance of the individual. EA
2010 provides religious protection, although it's not comprehensive. According to § 29(8), the
Act does not safeguard individuals' religion or religious beliefs when they offer services or
engage in other public duties. Section 33(6) of the Act does not protect homeowners who sell
or rent their houses. Section 85(2) of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exempts acts of
worship and religious observance from the definition of religion. You don't have to have a
job to work at a school of a certain religious denomination. The candidate may be required to
adhere to particular religious beliefs and practises in order to avoid running afoul of the
school's code of conduct. The employer must demonstrate that the employment requirement
is necessary and aligns with the company's objectives..
People who offer goods and services to the elderly are known to treat them unfairly, since
governments are aware of "a lot of proof." Discrimination harms both the dignity of
7
individuals and the economic foundation of a society. There is a lot of age discrimination in
the real world, including: a preference for "middle-aged clientele," a lack of interest in
spending money to ensure older individuals can utilise the items, and preconceptions. The
term "stereotype" refers to a group of people who share certain traits. This procedure is
frequently the cause of disparities in aged care access (especially financial services and
insurance). When more individuals are involved in economic and social life, they can help
ensure that everyone has equitable access to resources. [16] In insurance, financial services,
marketing, and the media, there are several examples of prejudice. It also occurs in public
places, on public transit, and in the use of contemporary technology, as demonstrated.
Access to products and services may be restricted in regions where the elderly are
discriminated against. Housing, vacation, life, and vehicle insurance are only a few of them,
as are borrowing and credit and banking commodities. The majority of the time, service
providers implement age restrictions based on the danger involved. Another example is the
insurance sector, which determines how much danger there is based on age. As a result,
certain services are unavailable, while others are prohibitively expensive for the elderly.
Benefits are also depending on age, which might be disadvantageous to the elderly.
When it comes to religious bias, having two religions at the same time is an issue since you
can't believe in two faiths at the same time. They are based on faith rather than logic, and
their allegiance is to God rather than a set of rules. People who claim to have been
discriminated against because of their religion are often prosecuted in a secular court, which
isn't always prepared to judge on religious issues. In the instance of Khaira v Shergill, this is
exactly what transpired. Because the matter involved the Sikh faith, the Court of Appeal
opted not to consider it. When private rights, like as property rights or contractual claims, are
in jeopardy, the Supreme Court must rule what the law is.
(ii) Employers are expected to handle health and safety in accordance with the law. The
following summarises the impact of the law on employers. Bear in mind that employees and
self-employed individuals have responsibilities as well. Employers have a responsibility to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of their employees and other stakeholders. Employers
must make every effort to do this. This includes safeguarding employees and others, as well
as successfully decreasing workplace injury and health threats. Employers are obligated by
law to conduct risk assessments in the workplace. Risk evaluations should consider all
potential job dangers. It is your employer's obligation to inform you about the risks associated
with your job and how you can protect yourself. On matters of health and safety, employees
must be consulted. Consultation must be conducted directly or through a safety representative
designated or chosen by the workforce. The HSE has published a booklet titled Health and
safety made simple that details the steps that businesses must take to comply with health and
safety requirements.
The HSE has produced a brochure titled Health and safety regulation: A brief guide that
explains how the legislation operates. Each workplace shall prominently display a copy of the
authorised poster or booklet, as required by the Health and Safety Information for Employees
Regulations (HSIER). What you need to know about health and safety law in the United
Kingdom.Workers can make a complaint to the HSE if they think their employer is putting
them in risk or is not adhering to their legal health and safety requirements.

8
When it comes to finding a job, judges like Ladele consider the need to compromise. Because
of her strong religious convictions, Registrar Miss Ladele refused to perform civil unions.
She shouldn't have done this because her employer (Islington Borough Council) is required to
deliver services free of bias. As soon as she said no to doing the ceremonies instead of
administrative duties, she was dismissed. She was also unsuccessful in her quest to have the
European Court of Human Rights hear her case. Canadian courts apply the "reasonable
accommodation" test in cases of religious discrimination. This criterion has been compared to
the present standard in the UK. A reaction to the failure to make required modifications to
guarantee that everyone has equal access, not a comparison, is making reasonable
accommodations. After the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided in favour of
employers, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published a guide for
businesses. Employers should take religion and religious requests seriously unless there is a
compelling reason to do otherwise. In deciding whether to approve an employee's request or
deny it, employers must consider the financial and operational implications of both granting
and denying it, as well as the impact on the employee, their coworkers, and any customers or
service users.They should also consider the consequences for health and safety. It will be
interesting to watch if other employees get enraged if the idea is granted. They might use that
as an excuse to refuse it. In paragraph 20 of the EA 2010, the employer is required to make
reasonable modifications. Religious expression is not always accepted in other European
nations, such as France. A rule established on March 15, 2004, allows religious garb to be
banned from public schools in France. The rule was founded on the 1905 French concept of
laicité, which states that religious declarations should only be expressed in private and that
public areas should be secular. What is at issue is whether a secular approach to religious
festivals is better for Europe, or if the secular approach is discriminatory since it does not
allow for specific religious displays. Following in the footsteps of France, the wearing of face
coverings in public is now prohibited in the Netherlands and Belgium.
France's prohibition on face masks was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights,
although the court's attempt to overturn the restriction failed. According to the Grand
Chamber in SAS, while having identical values might be a hindrance, they can also be a
solution because they establish the basic level of living together in society. In addition, the
federal and state court systems failed miserably in their respective endeavours. Through its
dismissal of the case of Baby Loup, a French court demonstrated that face-covering
prohibitions are becoming more widespread outside of the public sector. People who deal
with children are not permitted to wear religious adornments that conceal their features,
according to a court ruling.
Those who attempted to have France's prohibition on wearing face masks overturned by the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) were unsuccessful. Even while shared values are a
part of the problem, the Grand Chamber stated in SAS that they aren't the only thing that has
to be altered in the world. In recent years, secularism has gotten a poor name from academic
opponents who claim it frequently blends neutrality toward religion with animosity for it,
which isn't what it should be. Because the courts who hear and determine these types of
lawsuits are not religious, it could be a good idea to distinguish religious discrimination from
other types of prejudice.

9
Conclusion
It's critical to show that the Act mentions legal discrimination. Direct discrimination is
permissible in the armed services (to ensure military combat effectiveness), positive action,
and direct discrimination ( positive action are intended as measures to alleviate disadvantage
suffered by people who share one of the protected characteristics). Both indirect and direct
age discrimination must be justified by a "legitimate goal." The New Equality Duty requires
public institutions to pledge to eliminate discrimination, improve equality of opportunity, and
encourage good relations. Government agencies should use this strategy in all elements of
their operations, from day-to-day operations to policy formation and service delivery.

References
Hunter-Henin M, Living together in an age of religious diversity: lessons from Baby Loup and SAS (2015) 4(1)
Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 94-118
Leigh I, Book Reviews: The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere; A Secular Europe: Law and Religion in the
European Constitutional Landscape; Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State (2015) 17,
Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 96-98
Marshall J, The Legal Recognition of Personality: full veils and permissible choices (2014) 10(1) International
Journal of law in Context, 64-80
Pitt G, Taking Religion Seriously (2013) 42(4) Industrial Law Journal 398-408
Vickers L, Religious discrimination in the workplace: An emerging hierarchy? (2010) 12 Ecclesiastical Law
Journal 280-303
Vickers L, Indirect discrimination and individual belief: Eweida v British Airways Plc (2009) 11(2)
Ecclesiastical Law Journal 197-203
Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10;
Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10 at paras. 66 and 67. In contrast,
however, see Halifax Herald Limited v Clarke, 2019 NSCA 31 at paras. 72 to 74;
Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10 at para. 63;
Motion Industries (Canada) Inc. v. McCarthy, 2015 ONCA 224;
Persaud v. Telus Corp., 2017 ONCA 479
Wronko v. Western Inventory Service Ltd., 2008 ONCA 327;
Belton v Liberty Insurance Co. Of Canada (2004), 34 C.C.E.L. 3(d) 203 (ONCA);
Daly E, Public funding of religions in French law: the role of the Council of State in the politics of
Constitutional Secularism (2014) 3(1) Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 103-126

EHRC, Religion or belief in the Worplace: A Guide for Employers Following Recent Eurpean Court of Human
Rights Judgements (2013)

Fredman S, Discrimination Law (2nd edn, OUP, 2012)

Gibson M, The God ‘Dilution’ religion, Discrimination and the Case for Reasonable Accommodation (2013) 72
The Cambridge Law Journal 578-616

10
Hale of Richmond Baroness, Secular Judges and Christian Law, (2015) 17(2) Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 170-
181
Hoffman D, Rowe J QC, Human Rights in the UK (3rd edn, Pearson 2010)

11