Marita Smith Case Study

TITLE: MARITA SMITH CASE STUDY 1
MARITA SMITH CASE STUDY
COURSE
HRP105-77 Recruitment and Selection
PRESENTED BY
Sunil Kumar STUDENT ID: A00112402
Premnath Jayaprakash STUDENT ID: A00132889
Husandeep Kaur STUDENT ID: A00110533
Manjot Kaur STUDENT ID: A00128808
Arshdeep Kaur STUDENT ID: A00112391
Parminder Kaur STUDENT ID: A00112393
SUBMITTED TO
Jehanzaid Chughtaee
Question 1: As an introduction, brief background of the case.

Answer: Marita smith who is disabled in hearing and productive employee, works in a govt.
department as a data entry clerk. Due to downscaling her department, she got a fired notice
because her position eliminated. Under her contact with the union, she has to give preference in
available any govt. job. She got offered to apply in term job in govt. department. To qualify
position, she will need to pass interview, typing test in given time, two accuracy tests on
computer screen-1st one to make a copy of given information and 2nd is written guidelines need to
enter in written record on computer database. Criteria are same for all candidates.
She passed interview except skill test. Due to this she does not get a job. Now she thinks that she
had become a victim of discrimination on behalf of her disability. She claims that in personality
test, references made to her disability and interview never use a sign language and never made an
eye contact. And she thought that she was in lose taking skill test.
Whereas, from employer side she has passed tests and would have been hired. Her disability will
be accommodated. Employer also states that testing standard was required for efficient for
workplace. Smith filled complaint with provincial Human Right Commission.
Done by Sunil Kumar

STUDENT ID: A00112402
Question 2: Was Smith the victim of discrimination because of her disability?

Should Smith have received a job offer or not? Provide adequate justification using
relevant concepts and case details.
Answer: According to the case study smith was discriminated because the interviewer did not
make an eye contact with her during the interview section and she feels that she was
disadvantages at talking the skill test. And she does not have any waver for her disability in the
test among the others. According to me smith should have received a job by considering her
disability, with that disability her scares were good. The employer should consider her
performances and her talent not her disability. Also, she passed her interview and performed
well. Because of that her current job ended and laid off. According to the employer the test is
arranged standard with all components necessary for the job. But according to me there should
be some waver for disability people in the test.
Done by Premnath Jayaprakash

Question 3: Did she receive appropriate accommodation? Provide adequate

justification using relevant legal concepts and case details.
Answers: Accommodation is really the responsibility of an employer to make improvements to
an unfair hiring policies or procedures to address the interest of members of a covered
Community impacted by the process of policy of employment in this case the accommodation
was extremely hearing impaired and indeed the accommodation required for her was the
translator and the company supplied her with one and as she passed the test, the interview
appeared to be a positive.
Done by Husandeep Kaur

Question 4: Are the employer’s standards defensible as a BFOR? Provide adequate

justification using relevant legal concepts and case details.
Answer: As per the case study she was provided with a sign language interpreter during the test
due to her disability. Although she was passed the interview, but she failed in skill test. However,
she was also not clear the standard needs of the test. There were four steps that’s had to be
completed by the employers who was join the test and to pass the test. She thought thar she was
discriminated by department for her disability but in the real department was hiring employees
on the behalf of standards. She was lack in to get a job because of her skills not for any
disability. Her result was not matched with the guidelines and rules and format of the department
standards. As they want well experienced and skilled employee for their department.
Done by Manjot Kaur

Question 5: Based on the material presented in this chapter, do you think the
Human Rights Commission will support her claim of discrimination? Provide
adequate justification using relevant legal concepts and case details.
Answer: In the given case study smith believes that she was a victim of indirect discrimination
because during the interview the interviewer mention about her disabilities number of times and
also didn’t made eye contact with her which was a negative impact on her. As per section 8 of
the Canadian Human Rights Commission Act nobody discriminated on the basis of their religion,
color, sex, disability. If any employee suffers from it he or she should be claimed. In case study
smith was directly or indirectly judge by her disability.
Done by Arshdeep Kaur

Question 6: If you were the employers legal counsel, how would you defend the
employer at a human rights tribunal that is called to hear smith’s complaint? What
would you advise your client to do with respect to charge?
Answer: Marita Smith who worked in govt. department as a data entry clerk and her performance
has always been not good. Now I would like the factors that would support employer would be:
Firstly, Smith who cleared the interview but did not fulfill the requirement for typing test as seen
in the table 3.5. So, in this case, the employer who adopted the particular standards in an honest
and good faith belief, but she became the victim of adverse discrimination.
Under hardships was also supported to the employer which implies that there may be some
hardships in accommodating someone’s disability. Cost outside and source of finding are the
only factors of undue hardships.
Finally, factor is sufficient risk of BFOR defense. In this, the employer may argue that
professional requirement always discriminates against protected group is reasonably necessary to
explain that work will be done successfully and without any danger or harm to the public
Done by Parminder Kaur

Marita Smith Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marita Smith Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marita Smith Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE: MARITA SMITH CASE STUDY 1

MARITA SMITH CASE STUDY

Question 1: As an introduction, brief background of the case.

Done by Sunil Kumar

Question 2: Was Smith the victim of discrimination because of her disability?

Done by Premnath Jayaprakash

Question 3: Did she receive appropriate accommodation? Provide adequate

Done by Husandeep Kaur

Question 4: Are the employer’s standards defensible as a BFOR? Provide adequate

Done by Manjot Kaur

STUDENT ID: A00128808

Done by Arshdeep Kaur

STUDENT ID: A00112393

You might also like