Navigate Up
Sign In

Media

Hiring and pre-hiring process : our opinion | CDPDJ

Hiring and pre-hiring process

Hiring and pre-hiring process

  • IMPRIMER LE DOCUMENT.
  • Les deux prochains liens contiennent des informations qui ne respectent pas les standards sur l'accessibilité du Web du gouvernement du Québec.
  • Partager sur Facebook.
  • Partager sur Twitter.

To prevent discrimination in the context of job interviews and pre-hiring application forms, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms was amended in 1982. Accordingly, employers are not allowed to ask a job applicants questions regarding age, religion, sexual orientation, civil status, or any other personal characteristic, except if these questions pertain to a qualifications or skills required for the job.

However, this is a widespread practice. The Commission receives complaints every year related to this topic and has published several opinions on the non-discriminatory principles the employers must comply to when hiring new employers.

English language translations are provided when available.

  • CDPDJ c.Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux des Laurentides (Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Thérèse-de-Blainville) (2017) This link will redirect you to an external Website in a new window.
    In this judgment, which upholds the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse’s position, the Human Rights Tribunal confirms that a pre-employment medical questionnaire asking questions not directly and rationally related to skills and qualifications required for the job is discriminatory. When applying for a position as psychologist, the unidentified complainant was obliged to reveal his or her age and hospitalization contrary to section 18.1 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

  • CDPDJ c. Bathium Canada inc. (2015) This link will redirect you to an external Website in a new window.
    The Québec Human Rights Tribunal sentenced Bathium Canada to pay $2000 in damages to a man who was asked “superfluous” information in a pre-hiring medical examination. The judge found that mentioning “morbid obesity” on the medical certificate was not linked to the qualifications required for the job. He also found that it was not necessary to offer a conditional job offer before requiring that an applicant undergo a medical examination.

  • CDPDJ c. Bathium Canada inc. (2015) Cet hyperlien vous mène vers un site externe dans une nouvelle fenêtre.
    Le Tribunal des droits de la personne a condamné Bathium Canada à verser 2 000 $ en dommages à un homme qui, dans le cadre d’un examen médical préembauche, s’est fait demander des renseignements médicaux « superflus ». Le juge a considéré que la mention « obésité morbide » paraissant sur le certificat médical n’était pas reliée aux exigences du poste mais a jugé qu’on ne pouvait exiger qu’une offre d’embauche conditionnelle soit présentée à un candidat avant de lui imposer un examen médical préembauche.

  • CDPDJ (Johanne Stortini) c. De luxe produit de papier inc. (2003) This link will redirect you to an external Website in a new window.
    A woman was fired because the pre-hiring medical examination revealed that her spine was weak, but this condition did not prevent her from doing her work. The company had to pay her $101,000 for loss of income.

  • CDPDJ (Sylvie Arsenault) c. Institut Demers inc. et Groupe Conseil G.S.T. (1999) This link will redirect you to an external Website in a new window. (in French only)
    A woman was not hired after undergoing psychological tests revealing that she suffered from co-dependency issues. These tests had no connection with the job, and the employer had to pay the victim $7,500. Moreover the employer was ordered to stop using these tests.

  • CDPDJ (Monsieur P) c. Magasins Wal-Mart Canada inc. (2003) This link will redirect you to an external Website in a new window.
    Wal-Mart was sentenced to pay $9,500 to a man who was fired because of his criminal record, although the offences had no connection with his job as a clerk.

  • CDPDJ (Mostafa Atir) c. Systématix Technologies de l’information inc. et Andrée Laverdure (2010) This link will redirect you to an external Website in a new window. (in French only)
    During the selection interview, an employee of Systematix Technologies asked the complainant several personal questions because he was Muslim. The company had to pay the man $7,500, and was ordered to implement an anti-discrimination hiring selection process.

 

Did you know?

The Commission received 93 complaints of discrimination based on hiring practices in 2015-2016, which represents more 23% of all complaints in the area of employment.

 

To learn more...

See our information page about hiring and pre-hiring practices