Module 6

The Meiorin Case – 3 Steps Test Assignment

Human Resources Management, Centennial College
HRPD 706: Labour and Employment Law
Professor: Bar-Dayan, Tova
By: Sara Chawraba - 301194945
Saturday, Feb 17th, 2024
 Meiorin Tests Application Activity:

Now you try to apply the Meiorin Tests. Click on the link below to type your answer in
the M6: Assessment.

Scenario: You are a manager in a large Toronto engineering firm, and you have been
given new a project and have been authorized to hire 2 new employees to help with the
increased workload. You need to create the job description and hiring requirements.

You feel that your current team get along well and collaborate effectively. You would
like these new hires to fit in and get along with all of your current team, so you decide to
add a standard in your hiring requirements that the applicant must have at least one year
of Canadian work experience.

Apply the 3 Meiorin tests to this scenario:

1. Was the standard adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to job performance?
2. Was the particular standard adopted in an honest and good faith belief that it was
necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate work-related purpose?
3. The standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose.
This includes a requirement to demonstrate that it is impossible to accommodate without
undue hardship.
4. Will the employer be able to successfully defend this requirement based on the three
tests?
 The Meiorin test, originating from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the
Meiorin case. It provides an outline for organizations to evaluate whether a workplace
requirement is considered an indirect discrimination or is justifiable. With the given of
this assignment, I will apply the three steps test of the Meiorin case to the scenario where
as a manager in a Toronto engineering firm I can require job candidates to have at least
one year of Canadian work experience.
1. Was the standard adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to job
performance?
The requirement for at least one year of Canadian work experience could be rationalized
as guaranteeing that new hires are familiar with the Canadian work culture, local
standards, and regulatory environment. Those are essential for the team collaboration and
productivity in an engineering firm. This requirement seems rationally connected to job
performance, especially because engineers require understanding of the country’s codes,
standards, and common work practices.
2. Was the particular standard adopted in an honest and good faith belief that it was
necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate work-related purpose?
When I listed this as a requirement, I believed that it is an essential aspect of integrating
new employees into the team. My intention is to ensure they can contribute positively to
ongoing projects without the need for extensive training on local standards. My decision
was based on previous experiences, were employees with more Canadian work
experience were able to contribute to the ongoing projects more effectively. However, I
also understand that this intention may be criticized for biased judgments and
stereotyping behaviour.
3. Is the standard reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose?
This includes a requirement to demonstrate that it is impossible to accommodate
individual differences without undue hardship.
I find this to be the most challenging test to meet. We would need to prove that hiring
employees without previous Canadian work experience would cause the firm undue
hardship. "Undue hardship" includes financial considerations and health and safety
requirements. In this case, I believe I would fail this part of the test as in many cases,
accommodating individuals that do not have Canadian work experience could be
sufficient and less discriminatory.
Based on the Meiorin 3 step test, and as a result to my answer to the last requirement, I
believe the firm won’t be able to go ahead with the Canadian work experience as a
mandatory requirement for hiring new engineers. While the requirement have been made
for rational reasons and adopted in good faith, it will be hard to demonstrate that such a
standard is reasonably necessary to the extent that no accommodation could be made
without undue hardship.