Sarah, a salon owner, operates a trendy salon in London, Ontario. She advertises for a stylist. Nia calls in response to the ad and seeks an interview. At no time does Nia mention she covers her head for religious reasons. Nia attends the interview, which lasts only ten minutes. During the interview, Nia makes it clear that she will not remove her headscarf while at work and Sarah tells her that in that case, she cannot hire her. Sarah has a policy requiring all stylists to show their hair. She doesn't allow baseball caps or other hats to be worn by staff because, in her view, a stylist's hair is her "calling card" and that of the salon's. As a result of Sarah's reaction to her headscarf during the interview, and the ultimate decision not to offer her the job, Nia files a human rights application alleging discrimination. (She's been turned down by numerous salons and she's tired of it.) Sarah says she's a small salon and the costs of responding to this complaint will put her into financial ruin.
a. Does Nia have a prima facae case? Be sure you identify each of the three parts of the test and identify whether Nia meets the test and how.
b. Explain the general legal obligations employers have with respect to the accommodation of employees belonging to a protected group under human rights legislation in Canada.
c. Assume that you are on the Human Rights Tribunal deciding this case. On the basis of Ontario's Human Rights Code, what would your decision be? Support your conclusions.