"As a white male, I did not get a job because my race, gender"/ "My husband's employer does not offer paid parental leave"

Apr. 23, 2018"as a white male, I did not get a job because my race, gender": This was in the Globe and mail: 

The Question

After interviewing for a senior role in a large, well-known Canadian organization, I was told by the recruiter‎ that, despite “hitting all the high notes from a capabilities and experience” perspective, their client ”couldn’t do it. White males just won’t cut it. I am so sorry as I wouldn’t have gone this far with you if I had known this beforehand.”

What, if anything, should I do about this? In the push for greater diversity, how should organizations protect themselves to ensure that their actions are not, in fact or in appearance, discriminating against one pool of candidates in favour of another?

The First Answer

George Cottrelle

Partner, Keel Cottrelle LLP

Everyone in Canada, including job applicants, is protected from discrimination in employment, including discrimination based on sex or race. Employers in many provinces are expressly prohibited from advertising jobs using discriminatory qualifications.

However, employers are permitted to implement employment equity programs, which will not constitute discrimination if the programs meet applicable statutory requirements, such as helping disadvantaged groups achieve equal opportunities.

Ontario’s Human Rights Commission has published guidelines for these special programs, including that employers communicate the existence of the program and any restrictions on eligible applicants. Most provinces allow, and a few require, special programs to be preapproved by the Human Rights Commission. 

Larger employers under federal jurisdiction are statutorily required to develop employment-equity plans to achieve employment equity.

The job applicant was told he had the required capabilities and experience, but was disqualified because he was a white male. This was prohibited discrimination, entitling the individual to file a complaint with the applicable human-rights commission or tribunal. The employer could defend itself with evidence of an appropriate program. 

But the existence of such a program should have been disclosed to the recruiter and applicants at the beginning of the selection process and, regardless, the employer’s response to the applicant was inappropriate.

Organizations implementing employment-equity programs should follow the requirements guidelines established by their Human Rights Commission. 

The Second Answer

Bill Howatt

Chief research and development officer, work force productivity, Morneau Shepell 

The primary purpose of affirmative-action policies is to increase equity and employment opportunities for minorities. Those of us who study organizations’ cultures agree that increasing diversity and inclusion in the workplace is good for success and results. 

A diverse workplace is more aligned to the general population and creates conditions for attracting the right people to close talent gaps.

My understanding of organizations attempting to implement what sounds like, in your case, employment quotas must be careful not to breach opportunity for majorities, as they have equal protection. A lawyer who is an expert in employment law would be able to spell out what your rights are in this situation and if there are any grounds for a charge of discrimination.

One additional caution for recruiters or employers who are hiring anyone other than Caucasians and are openly sharing information such as the employer you cite are advised to use discretion in how they communicate their intention, to mitigate the risk for increasing sentiments that fuel racial tensions. 

How this was explained to you was inappropriate and inflammatory. The right response would have been, “I’m sorry; they went in another direction.”

Ultimately, each employer will be best served by hiring the best available person to fill an open position, regardless of gender, ethnicity or religion. Human-resource strategies that include diversity and inclusion provide an opportunity to educate senior leaders on the kinds of formal and informal bias happening in the workplace and how these can influence decision-making. 

As society becomes more diverse, it only makes sense that organizations are advised to embrace diversity the same way society has.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/career-advice/article-as-a-white-male-i-did-not-get-a-job-due-to-my-race-and-gender-what/

Apr. 29, 2018 "My husband's employer does not offer paid parental leave": Today I found this article in the Globe and Mail:

The question

 

My husband and I work in Manitoba. We are planning for our first child, and want my husband to take parental leave to stay home with the child after the first month, when I would go back to work. His employer does not provide paid parental leave, but it does provide a top-up for maternity leave.

Our question: Is it legal for an employer to provide a maternity leave top-up but not parental leave top-up? We realize the leaves are distinct, but this seems like a discriminatory policy that limits the options of both men and women with regard to child care.

The first answer

Daniel Lublin

Partner, Whitten & Lublin Employment Lawyers, Toronto

The federal government provides employment insurance benefits for up to 18 months of combined maternity and parental leave. However, there is a big difference between maternity leave and parental leave. Only mothers who give birth, including surrogate mothers, are entitled to maternity leave benefits.

 Parental leave benefits are provided to parents who are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child.

Employers are not required to compensate mothers or parents who leave work and claim either maternity or parental leave. However, some companies have elected to implement top-up policies, which provide for supplemental payments over and above any federal employment insurance that the government provides.

It is not discriminatory to provide top-up payments only to mothers who gave birth and take maternity leave but not to fathers who wish to take parental leave, as fathers are not eligible for maternity leave benefits anyway. 

However, an employer cannot provide mothers who give birth with a top-up during a parental leave, but not provide the same top-up payment to fathers if they elect to take parental leave.

In other words, an employer can choose to provide supplemental top-up benefits to new mothers who take maternity leave but not fathers who are not eligible for maternity leave. 

But if that employer offers to provide top-up payments during a parental leave period, then it must make those benefits available to everyone who is entitled to take a parental leave, including fathers.

The second answer

Bruce Sandy

Principal, Pathfinder Coaching & Consulting, Vancouver

Larger and more progressive private companies and unionized public-sector organizations often provide top-ups for parental leave and maternity leave as part of a negotiated benefit package, and as incentive to recruit and retain staff members. 

Smaller private companies may find providing top-up compensation packages too onerous financially, especially at startup and early development phases.

If you and your husband have decided that he will take paternal leave after you take one month of maternity leave, and this is too much of a financial burden, then you may want to rethink if you should be the one to stay home with the new baby and receive the top-up to your maternity leave. 

You may want to be flexible about your decision since many mothers decide after giving birth that they want to take a longer maternity and parental leave.

If equitable support for maternity and parental leaves and top-up compensation are very important for you and your husband, then this may become a consideration when either of you are considering future employment and employers.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/career-advice/article-my-employer-does-not-provide-paid-parental-leave-is-that-legal/?cmpid=rss