Response to last week’s article

by Brian Smeenk
Editor – Northern Exposure

Like the hockey gag line about going to a fight only to have a hockey game break out, last week Northern Exposure was the site of shock and awe, and a good legal debate broke out.

There was a lot of interest in our post last week about a discrimination case against McDonalds by a British Columbia employee who wasn’t able to wash her hands frequently. We were surprised by all the attention it got. Some people might think employment law is dull, but sometimes it can really touch a nerve with people. It certainly inspired a heated debate online.

One person’s reaction was that Canadian human rights tribunals are full of “post modern ideologues”; others were afraid that restaurant food in Canada would never be safe again; still others defended the decision because McDonalds really had not tried to accommodate the employee at work to any real degree.

I contributed to the blog debate with some sympathy for both the critics and the tribunal. The critics may be right about unrealistic, ideological tribunal decisions in many cases; but in this case I think the tribunal got it right based on how poorly McDonald’s handled the accommodation needs of the employee. You can check out the whole debate on our blog. We also hope you’ll comment about our other posts and let us know what you think.

• 

  Brian Smeenk, Fasken
  Brian Smeenk is a Toronto partner in Fasken's Labour, Employment & Human Rights Group. He is also editor-in-chief of Northern Exposure and a member of the Employers Counsel Network. Since 1981, Brian's practice has focused on management-side labour and employment law. He represents both private sector and public sector employers, including many multi-national companies, in all aspects of labour relations and employment law and appears before tribunals and courts at all levels.