A-367

Employment Law

1
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. The employee will not be entitled to a severance payment as
a result of his or her resignation. if the employee sues his or her employer on the grounds of
constructive dismissal, he or she may be obliged to pay the employer's legal expenses. Before
resigning and pursuing a claim for constructive dismissal, an employee should consult with
an employment attorney with extensive knowledge in this area. There may be alternative, less
hazardous, options accessible to the employee to maintain his or her rights and interests, and
these should be investigated.
In Ontario, constructive dismissal does not entitle an employee to a larger or lesser severance
payout than if the company actually terminated the employee without reason. When an
employee is terminated without reason, the severance package he or she is entitled to is the
same regardless of whether the employer directly notified him or her of this fact. Toxic or
discriminatory working conditions may result in a dismissal, and in that instance, the
employee may be entitled to additional damages such as moral, punitive, or human rights
damages in addition to those for wrongful dismissal. Legally, a party to a contract can
terminate the deal and claim damages if the other party to the contract is no longer executing
its or her responsibilities. Employers have breached their contractual obligations if they
significantly modify an employee's job, work environment, or compensation without their
employee's consent.

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.

3
Belinda usually have to leave after their employer makes a big change on their own. People
who don't quit in that time frame are seen as agreeing with the move. Sadly, it's hard to figure
out a "reasonable" time. The law isn't clear about this. It might be said that the employee has
a fair amount of time to think about the new working situation before being forced to make a
decision. An employee's decision about whether or not to accept a change will depend on the
type of change and the employee's personal situation. For example, if an employee's pay has
been cut very much, they may have to act quickly. In most cases, an employee whose job has
been changed in a big way will have more time to adapt before making up his or her mind.
People who are sexually harassed at work may be able to get constructive dismissal if the
harassment goes on for a long time. Because some types of behaviour, such as physical or
sexual harassment, an employee may not be able to accept at all.

b) Belinda who have been constructively dismissed may be required to stay with their
employers in order to compensate for their losses. Accepting "re-employment" as a
possibility (the obligation to accept re-employment is discussed in detail in the mitigation
chapter). If an employee can prove they were constructively dismissed, the court may rule
that they should have kept on in order to minimise their losses. In order to assess whether re-
employment is reasonable, the court will evaluate the facts and apply an unbiased standard. If
an employee is required to continue working for their old employer, a court will take into
account a range of factors. Compensation for damages may necessitate a constructive
dismissal caused by fair business restructuring or financial strain on the company.

c) An employee who quits and claims constructive dismissal must show that it's more likely
than not. Constructive dismissal is a real-life issue. A court will look at the facts of the case to
see if there was a constructive dismissal. The employee's old job and pay will be compared to
the new one. The court will use a set of facts to see if there was a constructive dismissal. An
objective approach looks at whether a "reasonable" third party in the employee's situation
would think the change was big enough to change the employment relationship. The
employee's opinion about the issue is not important.The employer's reason for changing
employment terms on its own is usually not important. Because even if the employer didn't
want to end the job contract, the employer's actions can. The employer's decision to make a
big change to the employee's job may still be a good thing. Courts can order an employer to
pay more than just wrongful dismissal damages if they made the change in bad faith.
Sometimes, the judge has looked at the employer's reasons to see if the employee was fired in
a "constructive dismissal." Contrary to these opinions, the employer's reason for making the
change should be taken into account when deciding whether a constructively terminated
employee should have lost less money by working for the company. They'll be judged to
have quit if they can't show constructive dismissal on the balance of chances. So the ex-
employee can't sue for money. A lot of the time, lessors will also have to pay some of the
legal fees of the company they work for. When an employee leaves and files a wrongful
dismissal lawsuit alleging constructive dismissal, they face a lot of trouble. This is because
they could lose their case.

4
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.

 Well-planned changes in a job relationship can cut down on the risk of big dismissals
and legal costs. Every case is different. A constructive dismissal doesn't make any
changes. The goal for the employer is to think about the possibility of a constructive
dismissal.
 Giving the employee clear and unambiguous notice that the change will happen on a
certain date in the future can help avoid a constructive dismissal, which is when an
employee is let go for good. As if they were fired, the employee should be given the
same amount of time to leave their job. After the notice period, the terms of the
employee's job will change.
 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.
 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.

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.

5
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) Racism and other types of discrimination aren't as bad as religious discrimination because
it's linked to other types of discrimination, like anti-Muslim prejudice or even politics in the
Northern Ireland conflict between the Catholics and Protestants. It says that religion and
belief are protected under 10 of the Equality Act 2010. Government explanations for this Act
say that protection is broad and consistent with Article 9, which was made part of UK law by
the Human Rights Act in 1998. In 1998, the Human Rights Act was passed. Article 9 of the
Human Rights Act of 1998 says that people should be able to think, feel, and believe what
they want to. It's good that 9 is there. Everyone has the right to speak out about their religion,
even if they don't believe in it. However, the expression of a religion or belief must be limited
in order to protect other people's rights and freedoms. When a religious belief is used to
justify discrimination against other people or interference with their rights, this qualifier is
very important to say. There are some people who think that teaching assistants should not be
allowed to cover their faces because of their religion. When the employee was suspended for
refusing to remove her face veil, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said that she wasn't
discriminated against because she was Muslim. The EAT said that anyone who covered their
face with a veil would be treated the same, no matter what religion they were.
Justification is then a factor in whether or not indirect discrimination can be allowed in
general, and religious prejudice in particular, can be allowed. When you look closely at your
goals and the methods you use to reach them, you can achieve proportionality. How to figure
out proportionality and where means should be to reach goals are two issues. Costs are not a
good reason to do something; it must be shown that the chosen action is the only option and
meets a real business need. Justification is needed when actions are taken that discriminate
against others, such as religious discrimination. Court: Because Eweida couldn't show that
she was being discriminated against because she was wearing a cross, which was against a
British Airways uniform policy, the court ruled that she was the only Christian who didn't
like the rule. This was not indirect discrimination, but just a personal preference (ECtHR). X
v Y School did the same. People who work with kids can't just talk about them without

6
knowing who they are. Other Muslim students at the school didn't care about having to wear
uniforms. But at the European Court of Human Rights, she was able to get her case heard
(ECtHR). The term "dignity" has been added to the EA 2012's definition of harassment by
law. In 26, the Act says that "unwanted behaviour related to a protected feature that harms
another person's dignity" is not allowed. Having dignity means there is no need to compare
yourself to someone else. As we said before, indirect discrimination claims based on religion
are easier to prove because they need a comparison. Due to the fact that equality as dignity
makes people more important, it is hard to say that equal treatment can be achieved by taking
away a benefit from the group that gets it. The EA 2010 gives some religious protection, but
it isn't complete. Under s 29(8), the Act doesn't protect religious or religious beliefs when
people provide services or exercise public functions. Under s 33(6), the Act doesn't protect
people who sell or rent out their homes. Under s 85(2), religion or belief doesn't apply to
anything done in connection with acts of worship or religious observance. At a school of one
religious faith, you can work without having to have a job. To avoid a conflict with the
school's way of life, the candidate may have to follow certain religious views and practises.
The employer must show that the job requirement is important and fits the goal.
The governments know that there is "a lot of evidence" that people who sell products and
services are treating older people differently. Discrimination hurts both the dignity of people
and the foundation of a country's economic growth. In reality, age discrimination is common
in many areas, including: economic preference for "middle-aged clients," a lack of
willingness to spend money to make sure older people can use the products, and stereotypes
[15]. Stereotypes are groups of people who have the same characteristics. This process is
often the source of differences in access to care for the elderly (especially financial services
and insurance). Increasing the number of people who use and contribute to the economy and
social life is one way to make sure everyone has equal access to goods and services. [16]
There are many examples of discrimination in insurance, financial services, marketing, and
the media. It also happens in public spaces, transportation, and modern technology, which are
all shown.

In places where the elderly are discriminated against, access to goods and services may be
different. Some of them are housing, travel, life, and auto insurance; borrowing and credit;
and banking goods. Most of the time, service providers set age limits based on risk. Another
example is the insurance industry, which uses age to figure out how much risk there is. As a
result, some services aren't available, and others are too expensive for people who are too old
for them. Benefits are also based on age, which can be bad for older people.
Having two faiths at the same time is a problem when it comes to religious prejudice, because
you can't believe in two faiths at the same time. They are built on faith rather than reason, and
their devotion is to God rather than a law. People who say they were discriminated against
because of their religion are usually tried in a secular court, which isn't always willing to rule
on religious ideas. This is what happened in the case of Khaira v Shergill. The Court of
Appeal decided not to hear the case because it was about Sikh religion. People in the
Supreme Court said that when private rights like property rights or contractual claims are at
risk, the court must decide what the law is.

7
(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.
As in Ladele, judges think about the need for compromise when they make decisions about work.
Miss Ladele, a registrar, did not want to perform civil unions for religious reasons. When she did this,
it was against her employer's (Islington Borough Council) duty to provide services without
discrimination, so she should not have done this at all. When she said she didn't want to do the
ceremonies in exchange for administrative work, she lost her job. Her case at the European Court of
Human Rights was also lost, too. When it comes to religious discrimination lawsuits, Canadian courts
use the "reasonable accommodation" standard. This standard has been compared to the UK courts'
current standard. Reasonable accommodation doesn't need a comparison; it's a response to not making
enough changes to make sure everyone has the same chances. The Equality and Human Rights
Commission (EHRC) has written a handbook for employers after the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) ruled in favour of employers. Religious and religious demands should be taken
seriously by employers unless there is a strong reason not to, says this. It's important for employers to
think about the cost, disruption, and wider impact on their business if the employee's request is
granted, as well as how it will affect the employee, other employees, and customers or service users if
it isn't. They should also think about the health and safety implications. Interesting to see if other
workers might be angry if the proposal is approved. They could use that as a reason to not accept it.
The EA 2010 says that the employer has to make reasonable changes in paragraph 20. In other
European countries, such as France, religious expression is not always welcome. Religious clothing
can be banned from public schools in France because of a law passed on March 15, 2004. The law
itself was based on the 1905 French idea of laicité, which says that public places should be secular
and that religious statements should only be made in private. The debate is about whether it's better
for Europe to have a secular approach to religious events or if the secular approach is discriminatory
because it doesn't allow for individual religious expressions. The Netherlands and Belgium have
followed France's example and made it illegal to wear facial veils in public, like they did in France.
People who have tried to get the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to overturn
France's ban on wearing face masks have not won. It was said by the Grand Chamber in SAS
that while similar values are part of the problem, they are also part of the solution because
they set the minimum standard for living together. The national courts also failed. The French

8
Court of Cassation threw out the case of Baby Loup, which means that the ban on facial
coverings is spreading to the private sector, not just public places. The court said that people
who work with minors can't wear religious adornments that cover their faces.
People who have tried to get the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to overturn
France's ban on wearing face masks have not won. The Grand Chamber said in SAS that even
though shared values are part of the problem, they aren't the only thing that needs to be
changed in the world. Secularism has been getting a bad rap in recent years because academic
critics say it often combines neutrality toward religion with antipathy toward it, which isn't
what it should be. It might be a good idea to separate religious discrimination from other
types of discrimination, because the courts that hear and decide these kinds of cases are not
religious ones.

Conclusion
It is critical to highlight that the Act makes reference to legal discrimination. Direct
discrimination is permissible when specific attributes are necessary for a job), military forces
(to ensure the armed forces' combat performance), and positive action ( positive action are
intended as measures to alleviate disadvantage suffered by people who share one of the
protected characteristics). To legitimise indirect and direct discrimination based on age, a
'objective cause' (legitimate purpose) is necessary. As a new Equality Duty requires public
institutions to commit to eliminating prejudice, increasing equality of opportunity, and
creating good relations. Public agencies should take this approach in their everyday
operations, policy development, service delivery, and employee relations.

References
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)

9
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

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)

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

10