New Brunswick Employer Met Duty to Accommodate Suicidal Employee

In McConnell v. Brunswick News Inc., the New Brunswick Human Rights Inquiry Board found that a New Brunswick employer did not fail to accommodate a repeatedly suicidal employee and that the decision to terminate him was completely unrelated to his mental disability.

McConnell suffered from severe depression and attempted suicide three times during his employment with Brunswick News. After each attempt, the company allowed him to take disability leave and attempted to accommodate him upon his return to work. Due to organizational changes, McConnell’s original position as a Circulation Supervisor was eliminated after his second suicide attempt and, upon his return, he was assigned to the mailroom. After this third suicide attempt, he was assigned to supervise the telemarketing department. Eventually, McConnell was terminated from this position on the basis of poor performance, including a lack of enthusiasm for the employer’s approach to increasing circulation of the newspaper, and a failure to meet sales targets.

McConnell filed a human rights complaint, alleging that his employer had discriminated against him by:

1. terminating him; and

2. failing to accommodate him during his employment by eliminating his former position, placing him in the mailroom and then the telemarketing department, and denying him other management positions.

The Board rejected the complaint in its entirety. The Board found that the allegations of a failure to accommodate during employment were not properly before it, since they were not included in the original complaint, and the incidents upon which they were based occurred outside of the one-year limitation period for bringing a complaint. However, the Board went on to find that, even if these allegations were properly before it, they were unfounded. The elimination of the employee’s former position was in no way related to his disability. Further, the Board stated, the employer had made extensive efforts to include McConnell and his doctors in all decisions relating to his accommodation, and the various positions to which he was ultimately assigned were suitable in terms of his medical restrictions.

With respect to McConnell’s complaint that his termination was discriminatory, the Board found that there was no evidence to connect his disability to the reason for his termination; which was unsatisfactory productivity.

This decision reiterates that employees who are being accommodated may still be dismissed, so long as the reason for dismissal is not at all connected to the employee’s disability. The decision also reinforces the importance of making efforts to accommodate employees to the point of undue hardship, and exemplifies the types of efforts that employers may be required to make in order to satisfy the duty to accommodate.

Finally, while the employee’s complaint was dismissed in this instance, the Board went on to find that, had the employer in fact failed to accommodate McConnell, it would have awarded in excess of $30,000 in general damages,. This decision thus serves as a reminder to employers that a failure to accommodate disabled employees could have very costly consequences.