Municipal fire service’s refusal to hire colour-blind firefighter was discriminatory, tribunal holds

Facts:

The applicant, who by 2012 had been a firefighter for several years in a smaller fire service, applied for a position as a firefighter in Quebec City. A medical questionnaire administered by Medisys Inc. on behalf of the city asked about specific conditions, including the ability to distinguish colours, and also asked whether candidates had ever been hospitalized or undergone any operations. When the applicant disclosed that he was colour-blind, the City discontinued his candidacy. By that time, the applicant had successfully completed numerous stages including a written test, interviews and a physical examination. Without meeting the applicant, the City’s medical advisor recommended against hiring him, on the basis that he could not perform his duties safely if unable to distinguish colours. The City also refused to meet with the applicant to discuss his capabilities. The Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission brought a complaint on the applicant’s behalf alleging that, in refusing to hire him, the City had violated ss.10 and 16 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which prohibit disability discrimination in employment. It also alleged that the City and Medisys violated ss.18.1 of the Quebec Charter by seeking unnecessary information on the medical questionnaire.

Issue:

Did the City’s and Medisys’ actions infringe the Quebec Charter?

Ruling:

The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal held that the City had discriminated against the applicant by refusing to hire him. It was common ground that colour blindness was a disability, and that the applicant had been denied employment because of that condition. As well, the City failed to establish that refusing to hire colour-blind applicants was a bona fide occupational requirement. Although the objective of ensuring the safety of firefighters and the public was rationally linked to the performance of firefighting, the City had failed to accommodate the applicant up to the point of undue hardship. It had failed to perform an individualized analysis of his capabilities, which was particularly egregious given that the applicant had worked as a firefighter for some time. Moreover, none of the safety and equipment features, including items such as caution tape and oxygen tank indicators, relied on by the City in justifying its refusal to hire colour-blind firefighters, actually supported its position, as the applicant was able to show that he could work with each of them safely and effectively. The Tribunal ordered the City to hire the applicant as a firefighter and awarded him nearly $110,000 in back pay and moral damages. The Tribunal also held that the medical questions concerning previous hospitalizations and operations were discriminatory, awarding $2,500 to be paid jointly by Medisys and the City to the applicant for this additional breach of the Quebec Charter.

Citation:

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Samson-Thibault) c. Ville de Québec, 2023 QCTDP 2 (CanLII), Christian Brunelle, Adjudicator, February 6, 2023.

*A more detailed summary of this decision, with commentary, will be published in upcoming issues of Lancaster House’s Firefighters/Fire Services Employment Law, Human Rights in Employment,Disability and Accommodation, and Municipal Employment Law eAlerts.