If the worker had told his employer that he suffered from addiction or if had produced medical documentation establishing a substance use disorder, the case might have looked very different. Photo by cozyta/Getty Images

Article content

Termination for cause has been described by the courts as the ultimate corporate death penalty. It takes away an employee’s entitlement to notice, termination pay and severance. Courts therefore rightly demand compelling justification before allowing an employer to impose it.

Article content

But there are circumstances in which paying someone to leave would be fraught with folly, economically reckless and a poor incentive to your remaining staff.

Article content

Article content

Article content

A recent Ontario Superior Court decision involving a long-haul truck driver provides a useful example. It also exposes a misconception that has become increasingly common in workplaces: that invoking addiction or another disability as an excuse for misconduct can shield an employee from the consequences of breaking a workplace rule.

Article content

Article content

It cannot.

Article content

Where a genuine disability is involved, employers have a legal obligation to accommodate. But accommodation is not absolution. Employees have obligations too, and cannot raise a disability for the first time only after being terminated.

Article content

That distinction was decisive in the case of the long-haul trucker, who worked on cross-border routes for four years before failing a random drug test — twice.

Article content

When he was hired, he signed an acknowledgement agreeing to comply with his employer’s workplace rules, including a zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policy.

Article content

Article content

The employer did not immediately fire him. Instead, it required him to participate in a return-to-work program that included an educational component on testing requirements.

Article content

Article content

He went back to work, passed more random drug testing, and signed another written acknowledgement saying that failure to do so in the future could result in his immediate termination.

Article content

Article content

Then, nearly three years later, he failed again. This time, his employer fired him for cause.

Article content

The trucker sued for wrongful dismissal. But he did more than challenge the termination. He alleged discrimination, arguing that the employer had unfairly targeted him because of a substance use disorder.

Article content

That allegation raised an important issue under Canadian human rights law.

Article content

Employees are protected from discrimination based on specified personal characteristics, including race, religion, age, family status and disability. Addiction can constitute a disability.

Article content

When a workplace rule adversely affects an employee because of a protected disability, an employer may have a duty to accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship.

Article content

But there is a critical point that is often forgotten in discussions about accommodation.

Article content

Accommodation is a two-way street.

Article content

An employee cannot remain silent about a disability, withhold the information necessary to permit accommodation and then, after being fired, argue that the employer should somehow have known what was never disclosed.