California court: poisoning coworker was outside scope of employment, employer not vicariously liable
Montague et al. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., No. D063385 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2014).
"Is Excessive Internet Use Time Theft?" (May 16, 2012) is the subject of the latest HR Space bulletin from law firm Faskens. It was written by Hadiya J. Roderique.
The bulletin discusses a labour arbitration award and a decision of the Public Service Labour Relations Board, that were both issued in late 2011:
- Andrews v. Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration) 2011 PSLRB 100 (August 2011); and
- Health Sciences Association of British Columbia v. Health Employers' Association of British Columbia  B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 125 (Glass)
No free-standing duty to treat employee “fairly and with due respect for dignity" during accommodation process
In Emergency Health Services Commission v. Cassidy, 2011 BCSC 100, the BC Supreme Court ruled that there was no free-standing procedural obligation on an employer to treat an employee “fairly, and with due respect for his dignity" during the duty to accommodate process, the failure of which could ground an award of damages.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal had previously ruled in this case that while accommodating the employee's physical disability would have represented an undue hardship to the employer, the employer was still liable for damages to the employee for failing to treat him fairly and with due respect for his dignity during the duty to accommodate process.
The damages awarded by the Tribunal included an award of $22,500 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
The Tribunal's decisions can be found here: read more »