Although the pandemic might seem far in the past, we are still seeing the outcome of cases brought forward on issues that arose during this tumultuous period. In a recent decision out of Alberta, the court ruled that an employer had wrongfully dismissed an employee who refused to comply with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy on religious grounds.
Background
In Yee v Westjet, the employee was working for WestJet (the “Company“) as an accountant at the time that the Company introduced its COVID-19 vaccination policy (the “Policy“). When the Company announced the Policy, the employee had applied for an exemption on religious grounds. The employee advised the Company that her religious beliefs required her to abstain from vaccination, and provided a letter from her pastor confirming her “deeply held religious objection to medical interventions“.
The Company denied the employee’s exemption request, finding that the employee’s motivations for not getting the vaccine were at least partially motivated by her (secular) belief that the vaccine was not safe. Ultimately, the Company terminated the employee’s employment for cause when she continued to refuse to get vaccinated.
Court Analysis
The court found that the Company had failed to properly consider the employee’s religious exemption request, and had wrongfully concluded that the employee could not hold both a legitimate religious objection and a non-religious objection to the vaccine at the same time. Further, the Company had not asked any follow up questions or requested additional information to satisfy itself that the exemption request was legitimate.
Notably, the court found that even if the Company’s denial of the employee’s religious exemption request had been reasonable, dismissing the employee for cause was not a proportional response in the circumstances, given that the employee was working remotely. The court noted that the Defendant had failed to demonstrate why it could not simply allow the employee to continue working from home as she had already been doing.
Damages
As the Company did not have cause to terminate the employee’s employment, and the court concluded that the termination clause in her employment agreement could not be relied on to limit her entitlements (given that the Company had failed to pay the statutory minimums required by the clause in question), the court found that the employee was entitled to reasonable notice at common law. The employee was awarded damages of $65,587.72, equivalent to an 11 month notice period.
Key Takeaways
Although mandatory vaccination policies are not as common today as they were in the height of the pandemic, this case still highlights a number of legal principles that are still relevant today.
- Employee requests for accommodation must be taken seriously and dealt with in good faith. If employers feel that information is lacking or details are not clear, they should request additional information instead of making assumptions.
- The standard for just cause dismissal is high and must be assessed in the context of the situation. While cause dismissal may have been warranted in other circumstances (e.g. where the employee was working in the office with others), the circumstances here did not warrant it.
- Employers cannot rely on a termination clause in an employment agreement when they have not complied with the requirements of the clause. In this case, the circumstances may have been different if the employer had paid the employee their minimum statutory entitlements at the time of dismissal.
Whether you are an employee or an employer, if you have questions about this case or any of the key takeaways identified above, we encourage you to contact us.
