1

I was looking at the following case study, and was not sure if it fell under the category of "Reasonable Accommodation" which is what I was thinking of how it could be approached:

"An amusement park company has recently opened a ride/attraction that requires guests to put on headsets to fully experience the ride. However, many people who wear religious headgear such as Sikhs with turbans, Muslims with Hijabs, Jews with their Kippas, etc... are claiming that this ride excludes them unfairly as they are being told by the management that the only way they can go on the ride is by removing their religiously mandated headgear. Does the company have a duty to accommodate such guests by making a compromise of some sort? I.e., partially partaking in the ride, being given free passes, etc..."

Thanks.

  • You used the term "employer" but your question is not about employer/employee relations is it? Also is it the case that a customer can't take the ride without the headgear? – George White Jan 14 at 0:26
  • Hi. Yes, thanks for that. I edited out "employer". Yes, a customer can't take the ride without the headgear. – Dr. Ikjyot Singh Kohli Jan 14 at 0:46
  • 1
    They require people to wear the headsets? Regardless of the law, that's nonsense. If it was a safety feature, okay. But it's not. What amusement park is this? I'll be sure to avoid it. – RockPaperLizard Jan 14 at 23:51
  • 1
    @RockPaperLizard It is Cineplex's Rec Room. Their VR "ride" / attraction requires everyone to wear a headset. – Dr. Ikjyot Singh Kohli Jan 16 at 4:15
1

the only way they can go on the ride is by removing their religiously mandated headgear. Does the company have a duty to accommodate such guests by making a compromise of some sort?

The company has a duty to look into what it can do, and if it can't do anything — articulate why.

On the face of it, headsets are required "to fully experience the ride". That is, if a religious guest continues to wear their headgear instead of the headset, nothing will be affected but just their own ride experience. It is hard to see how this would meet the "undue hardship" criteria for the company to refuse the accommodation request.

So, instead of claiming that the ride excludes them unfairly, the religious guests can make a request for reasonable accommodation and, if not satisfied with the response, file a complaint.

  • I'm not sure why you linked to the Quebec-specific pages (perhaps just as an example). To my knowledge, each Canadian province has a Human Rights Code which covers this kind of public-facing business, but that is a nontrivial fact as they are all separate codes. – Kudu Jan 17 at 22:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.