[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Scenario 1: You, (a generalized you, not you per se) are the office manager and a person at the office comes to you asking for permission to wash feet at the washroom sink. You have to make a decision. Would you ask for an office vote or just allow him to wash his feet right away and face the consequences from people that are grossed out by this when they see it for the first time?

Scenario 2: You, (a generalized you, not you per se) are approached by a group of employees that are grossed out by someone washing their feet in the washroom sink. You have to react. Are you a) going to ask the individual to stop; or b) going to come up with and pay for an individually designed solution to accommodate his request to wash his feet?

I remember this is a super fine line but with huge wiggle room for employee and hands tied for business.

SPOILER: Wall of text.

Spoiler!

To what extent is accommodation required?

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that employers and service providers have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to accommodate individual needs to the point of undue hardship. To substantiate a claim of undue hardship, an employer or service provider must show that they would experience more than a minor inconvenience. In many cases, accommodation measures are simple and affordable and do not create undue hardship.

What is undue hardship?

Undue hardship occurs if accommodation would create onerous conditions for an employer or service provider, for example, intolerable financial costs or serious disruption to business. An employer or service provider must make considerable effort to find an appropriate accommodation for an employee. Some hardship may be necessary in making an accommodation; only when there is 'undue' hardship can the employer or service provider claim that they have tried all the accommodations available. To determine if undue hardship would occur, the employer or service provider should review factors such as:

Financial costs-Financial costs must be substantial in order to be found to cause undue hardship. They must be so significant that they would substantially affect productivity or efficiency of the employer or service provider responsible for the accommodation. Accommodation measures could result in lost revenue, which should be taken into account when assessing undue hardship. However, if lost revenue due to accommodation would be offset by increased productivity, tax exemptions, grants, subsidies or other gains, then undue hardship may not be a factor. Financial costs do not include the expense of complying with other legislation or regulations, such as building codes (for example, providing wheelchair accessible washrooms or separate washroom facilities for men and women).

Size and resources of the employer or service provider- The cost of modifying premises or equipment and the ability to amortize such costs will be taken into consideration when assessing if there is undue hardship. The larger the operation, the more likely it is that it can afford to support a wider range of accommodations without undue hardship.

Disruption of operations-The extent to which the inconvenience would prevent the employer or service provider from carrying out essential business will be a factor when assessing undue hardship. For example, modifying a workspace in a way that substantially interferes with workflow may be considered too disruptive to the workplace. Also where there is no productive work available to offer to the employee, accommodation may be an undue hardship.

Morale problems of other employees brought about by the accommodation-Morale problems could be due to the negative impact of increased workload on other employees and a requirement to work too much overtime. If other employees begin to experience sleep difficulties or other health issues brought about by the accommodation of a particular employee, then the accommodation may be an undue hardship.

Substantial interference with the rights of other individuals or groups-A proposed accommodation should not interfere significantly with the rights of others or discriminate against them. For example, a substantial departure from the terms of a collective agreement could be a serious concern to other employees. However, the objections of other employees must be based on well-grounded concerns that their rights will be affected.

Interchangeability of work force and facilities-Whether an employer or service provider could relocate employees to other positions on a temporary or permanent basis is a factor in determining undue hardship. This may be easier for a larger company.

Health and safety concerns-Where safety is a concern, consider the level of risk and who bears that risk. For example, consider if the accommodation would violate health and safety regulations. There would be an undue hardship if accommodation sacrificed safety for either the employee or others. If there is an issue of drug or alcohol dependency, please see the Commission's information sheet Drug and alcohol dependencies in Alberta workplaces.

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...p#towhatextent

I don't think you can stop the guy from washing his feet under any of the 7 criteria. Any attempts to argue the criteria are likely all a stretch I think.