Fired After Asking for Mental Health Leave: Alberta Tribunal Awards $20,000

Mental health accommodation requests can raise difficult issues for Alberta employers and employees, particularly when they arise during periods of stress, illness, or declining workplace capacity. A recent Alberta Human Rights Tribunal decision highlights how quickly an employment decision can attract scrutiny when an employee asks about medical leave or reduced hours and is then terminated before accommodation is meaningfully discussed.

In Cook v. 2307770 Alberta Ltd. o/a EL Vape, a part-time retail employee alleged that her employer discriminated against her in employment on the protected ground of mental disability. The employee had worked at a retail vape store in Lethbridge for nearly one year and had received positive feedback during her employment. She had also previously discussed her diagnoses of social anxiety disorder and ADHD with the store manager.

The Tribunal found that the employee established a prima facie case of discrimination. The employer did not participate in the hearing or provide evidence to justify its actions. The Tribunal awarded the employee $20,000 in general damages for pain, suffering, and injury to dignity, along with judgment interest.

Employee Requested Time Away From Work

The employee worked approximately 20 to 25 hours per week. In September 2022, she returned to school and began experiencing increased stress while trying to balance work and studies. She had spoken with the store manager about her mental health diagnoses and the difficulties she was experiencing.

In October 2022, the employee advised the store manager that she was feeling ill and could not work the next day. The manager told her that she would not be permitted to take the day off unless she provided a medical note. The employee later provided a doctor’s note placing her off work for two days.

Shortly afterward, the employee asked whether she could take a short medical leave. The store manager said she would raise the issue with the store owner. A meeting was then scheduled to discuss the potential medical leave request.

The Meeting Shifted From Accommodation to Termination

The employee attended the meeting with the store manager and owner. The meeting began with the owner asking her to explain her inquiry about medical leave. The employee discussed her mental health struggles and asked whether accommodation options might be available, including a brief medical leave or temporarily reduced hours.

According to the employee’s evidence, the owner explained what stress leave was, but did not discuss possible accommodations. The conversation then abruptly turned to alleged performance concerns. These included allegations about closing the store during shifts, refusing to work shifts, and parking in front of the store.

The employee disputed the allegations and asked for evidence. The store manager said they could not provide proof. The employer then terminated the employee’s employment and described her as “unfit.”

Mental Disability Is Protected Under Alberta Human Rights Law

The Alberta Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment because of protected characteristics, including mental disability. This protection applies to employment practices and terms or conditions of employment.

The Tribunal applied the well-established test for prima facie discrimination. To meet that test, a complainant must show that they have a protected characteristic, that they experienced an adverse impact, and that the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.

The Tribunal found that the employee met the first part of the test because she had medical evidence showing diagnoses of social anxiety disorder and ADHD. Mental disability is protected under the Act.

The Tribunal also found that the employee met the second part of the test because her employment was terminated. Losing one’s job is an adverse impact in the employment context.

Timing Helped Establish a Connection

The key issue was whether the employee’s mental disability was a factor in the termination. The Tribunal found that it was. The employer knew about the employee’s mental disability. In its earlier response to the complaint, the employer acknowledged that the employee had asked about a “mental leave.” The termination occurred immediately after the employee raised potential accommodation options at a meeting scheduled to discuss medical leave.

The Tribunal also noted that the alleged performance concerns had not previously been raised with the employee. There had been no disciplinary warnings during her employment. The sudden introduction of performance concerns during the accommodation meeting helped create an inference that the medical leave inquiry was at least a factor in the termination.

In human rights cases, the protected characteristic need not be the only reason for the adverse treatment. It is enough if the protected characteristic was a factor in the decision.

Employer Did Not Justify the Termination

Once a complainant establishes prima facie discrimination, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that the discrimination was reasonable and justifiable. This may include evidence about legitimate workplace requirements, accommodation efforts, or undue hardship.

In this case, the employer did not participate in the Tribunal hearing. It had filed an earlier response to the complaint but later stopped responding to communications from the Commission and Tribunal. It did not provide evidence at the hearing.

As a result, there was no evidence before the Tribunal to justify the termination or to show that accommodation was considered. The Tribunal found that the complaint had merit.

Accommodation Requires More Than Acknowledging the Request

The decision illustrates the importance of engaging with accommodation requests before making employment decisions that may be connected to a protected ground. When an employee raises a mental health concern, asks about medical leave, or seeks reduced hours due to a disability, an employer may need to consider whether the duty to accommodate is engaged.

The duty to accommodate is an individualized process. It often requires communication, reasonable information gathering, and consideration of possible workplace adjustments. Depending on the circumstances, accommodation may include modified hours, a leave of absence, temporary changes to duties, or other measures.

The Tribunal’s decision does not suggest that employers can never manage performance concerns after an accommodation request. However, where performance concerns are raised for the first time during an accommodation discussion, and termination follows immediately afterward, the timing may be significant.

General Damages Reflected the Serious Impact

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages for pain, suffering, and injury to dignity. In assessing the remedy, the Tribunal considered the seriousness of the discrimination and the impact on the employee.

The employee had been a student and had no other source of income. Losing her job affected her financial situation and her ability to continue her studies. She also experienced significant emotional distress. After the termination meeting, she suffered a panic attack. She later experienced anxiety, stress, and lowered feelings of self-worth.

The Tribunal accepted that the employee suffered significant emotional and financial distress because of the employer’s conduct. The award reflected the impact of losing employment in circumstances connected to mental disability and the absence of any meaningful accommodation process.

Human Rights Risk Can Arise in Small Workplaces

This decision involved a retail workplace and a part-time employee, but the principles apply broadly across Alberta workplaces. Human rights obligations are not limited to large employers or formal corporate environments. Small businesses, retail employers, and owner-managed workplaces must also comply with the Alberta Human Rights Act.

A workplace does not need to have a formal human resources department for the duty to accommodate to arise. Owners, managers, and supervisors may make decisions or comments that create liability for the corporate employer when they are acting in their workplace roles.

The decision also shows that informal language can matter. Describing an employee as “unfit” during a termination meeting involving mental health concerns may be viewed in the broader context of the accommodation request and the timing of dismissal.

Documentation and Process Matter

Workplace documentation can play an important role in human rights matters. If an employer relies on performance concerns, the timing, content, and history of those concerns may be examined. A lack of prior warnings or documentation may make it more difficult to establish that termination was unrelated to a protected ground.

Similarly, documentation of accommodation discussions can help show what was requested, what information was needed, what options were considered, and why certain options were or were not available. The absence of such evidence can create challenges where a complaint proceeds before a tribunal.

For employees, written medical notes, emails, text messages, and records of conversations may help establish what was disclosed and when. In this case, the employee’s affidavit evidence and medical records were important to the Tribunal’s findings.

Contact DBB Law in Calgary for Comprehensive Employment Law Services

Mental health accommodation, medical leave, disability discrimination, and termination can create complex legal issues for both employees and employers in Alberta. If you are dealing with a workplace accommodation request, a human rights complaint, or a termination involving illness or disability, the employment lawyers at DBB Law can help you understand your rights, obligations, and available options. We proudly serve clients in Calgary, Edmonton, and across Alberta. To schedule a consultation on your employment law matter, please reach out online or call 403-265-7777.