The case
A store manager for a leather company injured her wrist. The store eventually terminated her position, and she brought a human rights application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
She first argued that the employer had to keep scheduling a second employee during her otherwise solo shifts, in case she needed to perform essential duties her injury didn't allow. Before the hearing, she conceded this was beyond the employer's duty to accommodate.
She then argued that when she worked alone, she should be able to leave merchandising, housekeeping and other duties outside her restrictions to other employees. Most importantly, she asked that customers who wanted to see or buy items that would require her to exceed her restrictions be asked to come back when other staff could help them.
The decision
The Tribunal found that turning customers away was not part of the employer's duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code. The duty may require changes to the workplace that let an employee perform the essential duties of the job. It does not require permanently changing the essential duties of a position, or permanently assigning them to another employee.
The store manager conceded that sales and customer service made up 65 to 70 per cent of her job, and that helping customers was an essential duty. She argued that she didn't personally need to be able to help every customer, and that helping most of the time was enough. The Tribunal disagreed: "if a duty is essential, it is a duty that is required to be performed whenever there is a need to perform it".
The Tribunal warned that these cases are very fact-specific. Here, it put significant weight on the fact that the position involved just under 20 hours a week of shifts with no other employees present.
The takeaway
Essential duties or core components of a position don't normally have to be removed permanently, although they may be removed temporarily. What counts as an essential duty is decided case by case.