BC store that barred disabled worker from bringing service dog to work on the hook $40,000

A BC convenience store which refused to allow a disabled employee to bring their service dog to work has been ordered to pay $40,000.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal also found that the owners of A1 Convenience Store had made hurtful comments about the staffer and then fired her.

According to a March 13 BC Human Rights Tribunal decision, Kayla Aolick got a job at the A1 Convenience Store with the help of an employment agency that helps people with disabilities to find work. 

The decision says Aolick had a rare brain cancer as a child that left her with a seizure disorder and other disabilities.

In 2019, she began working unpaid at the convenience store owned by Harjodhan (Jodi) Rai and Surinder Rai, who are relatives of hers.

Aolick had a service dog, Shadow, which was trained to alert her if she was about to have a seizure so she could take medication, or to alert someone else if she had a seizure and was not aware of it.

However, on her first day at work at the Port Alberni store, the owner’s son, Major, refused to allow Aolick to bring her dog to work.

The store argued she also worked with someone else who could keep an eye on her.

However, the Tribunal didn’t buy it.

“Working with another person was not a reasonable substitute for having Shadow with her at the store, and was not necessarily helpful in the context of her seizure disorder,” the Tribunal ruled. 

The Human Rights Tribunal ruled that barring the dog from accompanying her at work was discrimination.

“They have not demonstrated that they could not have accommodated Kayla by allowing her to bring Shadow to work without experiencing undue hardship,” the Tribunal ruled.

The decision says Aolick worked at the store for months on a wage subsidy, and there was a “significant shift” in how she was treated after the subsidy ended.

Aolick alleged there was a pattern of rude comments related to her disabilities.

She testified she was told she was “too slow” and “scared customers away.”

The 89-page decision gives a play-by-play account of the working relationship and the testimony which stretched over four days.

“I find that the (store) started treating Kayla negatively in late fall or early winter 2019, once they did not want to pay her to work six hours per week anymore,” the Tribunal ruled. “This treatment included the incidents that Kayla described in her evidence.”

The store had emailed the employment agency saying it wasn’t happy with her progress.

The Tribunal said it was up to them to give her performance feedback and work with her to improve. 

“The (store) may not have intended to be cruel to Kayla but shifting how they treated her… suggested to Kayla that they did not value her,” the Tribunal said.

“This conduct was discrimination,” the decision reads.

In January 2020, the store fired her.

“The (store’s) obligations under the Human Rights Code did not require them to employ Kayla indefinitely because they created an accommodated position for her. It was open to end her employment for reasons unrelated to her disabilities,” the Tribunal ruled. “However, I find that Kayla’s disabilities were a factor in (its) dissatisfaction with Kayla as an employee and the decision to end her employment.”

The Tribunal ruled there was no justification for the termination.

“I find that their perception of what work Kayla was able to do, and how well she was able to do it, does not justify the termination,” the Tribunal ruled.

The Tribunal said there was poor communication throughout, and in a situation like this, poor communication would not always amount to discrimination.

“In this case, though, the (store’s) conduct was more than poor communication… this was discrimination,” the Tribunal ruled.

The Tribunal ordered the connivence store owners to pay $35,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with lost wages and fees totalling $39,967.