Appeal Hearing on Genetic Characteristics and Perceived Disability Discrimination
Date of Release: September 17, 2024
For Immediate Release
Contact: André Givogue
National Public Interest Case: Givogue v. Attorney General of Canada
The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal will hear a significant case, Givogue v. Attorney General of Canada (A-237-23), scheduled for October 2, 2024, pending confirmation. This case challenges how genetic characteristics and perceived disability discrimination are treated under COVID-19 workplace policies. This appeal has wide-reaching implications, as it could set a precedent for how genetic information is protected in Canadian workplaces. The hearing will be held both in-person at the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa and virtually via Zoom (link to be determined).
Key Facts:
Appeal Hearing Date: Tentative October 2, 2024
Platform: Federal Court of Appeal via Zoom (Zoom link to be determined)
Case Title: Givogue v. Attorney General of Canada (A-237-23)
André Givogue contends that his employer’s demand for COVID-19 vaccination and PCR testing disclosure, and subsequent adverse treatment, violated his rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Specifically, the case examines whether the genetic material involved in vaccination, such as mRNA and viral vector vaccines, as well as PCR tests, should fall under the CHRA’s broad protections against discrimination based on genetic characteristics.
Additionally, it addresses whether the employer’s actions constituted perceived disability discrimination by treating employees as health risks, not solely for refusing to disclose their vaccination status, but due to the denial of reasonable accommodation requests. The Appellant's adverse treatment stemmed from the rejection of his accommodation request, despite his ability to work remotely, rather than just the refusal to disclose vaccination status.
Legal Arguments:
1. Genetic Characteristics under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA):
Mr. Givogue argues that the term "genetic characteristics" under the CHRA should be interpreted broadly. This interpretation encompasses PCR tests and genetic material introduced by mRNA and viral vector vaccines, not just traditional health-based genetic tests.
This interpretation contrasts with the narrow definition of genetic tests under the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA), which limits the definition of genetic tests strictly to health-related tests. Mr. Givogue contends that genetic discrimination under the CHRA should extend to any use of genetic material—whether from PCR tests or mRNA vaccine status disclosure—that could impact a person’s employment or societal status.
This case could establish broader protections for employees, ensuring that PCR testing or vaccination requirements involving genetic material do not lead to discriminatory treatment.
2. Perceived Disability Discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act:
Mr. Givogue raises significant concerns about perceived disability discrimination stemming from his employer's response to his COVID-19 vaccination status. Despite working from home since April 29, 2019, the employer’s insistence on vaccination disclosure, alongside subsequent actions, suggests that employees who do not disclose their status are treated as health risks—a categorization that he argues constitutes discrimination under the broad protections of the CHRA.
The seriousness of COVID-19, recognized by Canadian public health guidelines and the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, has led to its consideration as a potential disability under the CHRA. The Canada Labour Code (CLC) was amended to provide leave for COVID-19-related reasons, reinforcing the link between COVID-19 and disability protections.
The employer’s policy categorizing employees who do not disclose their vaccination status as potential health hazards reflects a prejudicial perception, without regard to their actual health condition or ability to work remotely. This flawed policy application adversely impacts employees based on perceived disability and does not account for reasonable accommodations, such as the remote work arrangement that Mr. Givogue had successfully maintained before the pandemic.
The denial of accommodation requests and subsequent suspension demonstrate discriminatory treatment based on perceived health risks, with the employer failing to consider his established ability to work remotely.
Call to Action:
This hearing has far-reaching national implications and addresses critical questions about genetic characteristics protections and discrimination based on perceived disability in the workplace. The public is encouraged to attend the Federal Court of Appeal hearing virtually via Zoom to witness discussions that could shape Canadian law.
André Givogue’s fight is more than personal—it’s a national concern that could impact the rights of Canadians across the country. Help spread the word and make this news go viral!
For more information and updates, visit AndreFightsBack.com, the online hub for this legal battle and others involving justice, privacy rights, freedom, and accountability.
FAQs:
1. What is this case about?
This case challenges whether genetic characteristics under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) should be broadly interpreted to include genetic material from PCR tests and mRNA vaccine disclosure, not just traditional health-based tests. It also examines whether the employer’s treatment of employees as health risks, based on vaccination status and denial of reasonable accommodation, constitutes perceived disability discrimination under the CHRA.
2. Why is this case important?
This case could establish how genetic information such as material from PCR tests and mRNA vaccine disclosure is protected in Canada. It also examines how employers treat employees based on perceived health risks related to COVID-19, which could shape future workplace policies.
3. How can I attend the hearing?
The hearing will take place tentatively on October 2, 2024, in a hybrid format—both in-person at the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa and via Zoom. The Zoom link will be provided when available.
4. What are the broader implications of this case?
The outcome could affect privacy rights, workplace policies, and how employers handle genetic information and perceived health risks, especially in pandemic-related scenarios.
5. Where can I get updates on the case?
Visit AndreFightsBack.com for the latest updates on André’s legal battles and how you can support the cause.
-30-