Erik Burggraaf filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after he applied for a customer service position in the company’s call centre and was told that the company could not accommodate his disability (blindness). During the interview, the company asked him to describe his accommodation needs. He requested a screen reader with braille display and training materials in an accessible format. The Employer indicated that their proprietary programs might not be compatible with the screen reader but agreed to look into it and get back to him. The company subsequently advised Mr. Burggraaf that their IT team had determined that the software needed to accommodate him did not work with their system and he was refused the position.
During the hearing, the Tribunal found that, while the company engaged in some internal discussion about ways to accommodate Mr. Burggraaf and considered different software options, they neglected to make any inquiries with either Mr. Burggraaf (who was knowledgeable about both software and accommodation options) or the sole client of the call centre to see if either could suggest solutions. As a result, in acting unilaterally and without consulting Mr. Burggraaf or other experts, the company failed to meet both their procedural and substantive duty to accommodate Mr. Burggraaf under the Human Rights Code and had not established that Mr. Burggraaf could not be accommodated without undue hardship.
In light of the significant negative impact that the company’s decision had on Mr. Burggraaf’s mental health, including causing him to question his abilities as a blind person in his field of work and future career, the Tribunal ordered the company to pay $20,000 in compensation for injury to dignity feelings and worth plus nearly $8,500 in lost wages. It also ordered the company to develop human rights and accommodation policies in hiring that specifically apply to blind persons, to review their interview process and to make every effort to ensure accommodations for blind persons are addressed.
See Burggraaf v. Convergys CMG Canada ULC, 2025 HRTO 2599 (CanLII) https://canlii.ca/t/kfz5v
