Publication
Europe steps up its fight against fraud
European watchdogs have long been focusing on enforcement against corporate crime with a great focus on anti-corruption, economic sanctions and money laundering.
Global | Publication | January 2016
Employee absenteeism is one of the most perplexing and difficult issues facing employers today. It is also one of the most costly. In 2013, the Conference Board of Canada reported that the Canadian economy lost an estimated $16.6 billion in 2012 due to employee absenteeism alone. The Board, surprisingly, also found that less than half of employers were tracking absenteeism in their respective workplaces and their employees’ reasons.
Although concerns with protecting employee privacy are sometimes raised as reasons why no medical requests are even made of employees (or why an employee’s refusal to provide the employer with medical information is simply accepted), the reality is that privacy laws permit employers to request medical information from an employee that is reasonably necessary to determine whether an absence from work is legitimate and whether a duty to accommodate the employee exists (and to what extent). In fact, employees who refuse to respond to these medical requests may face a number of consequences, including termination of their employment for just cause.
So, what kinds of medical requests are reasonable?
The answer depends on the context (which includes what the parties may already have agreed to in their employment agreement), but adjudicators have traditionally found a very wide range of medical requests to be permissible, including questions regarding:
The latter request is particularly important for employers faced with facilitating a return to work after a long-term absence. Employers will usually want to ensure that the employee’s return to work is medically approved and any required accommodations explored before the return happens.
The kinds of medical requests that adjudicators have been found to be unreasonable (at least at first instance) is equally as fact dependent (including based on what the parties have already agreed to and what the employee has already voluntarily disclosed to the employer about their condition), but adjudicators have challenged employers requesting the following:
Getting the right information, however, is often a process and is context dependent. In more complicated cases, more probing questions and follow up will be appropriate, including in these “usually off limit” categories of medical requests. Thus, adjudicators have recognized exceptions and permitted employers to make these kinds of requests in a variety of circumstances (e.g. where the information is needed for the accommodation process, to mitigate a serious workplace safety issue, or to address inconsistencies in medical reports received from the employee’s doctor). Given the potential challenges to these requests, employers are best to first consider whether these exceptions indeed apply.
It remains to be seen what 2016 has in store for employers, but employers can take comfort in knowing that they can, and indeed may be legally required to, ask for something more than just the one-line prescription pad note.
Publication
European watchdogs have long been focusing on enforcement against corporate crime with a great focus on anti-corruption, economic sanctions and money laundering.
Publication
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC Act) received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 and is generally expected to come into force in autumn this year.
Publication
Head of Legal Operations, Stephanie Hamon, will be joining the panel discussion on "Simplifying Legal Tech Adoption and Implementation" at the Legal Tech Talk conference on June 13th (3:30 - 4:15 PM).
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023