Smith passed the interview but failed the skill tests. Her scores are presented in Table $3\mathrm{.}6,$ along with the minimum scores that had to be obtained on each test to receive a job offer. Based on her performance on the tests, Smith did not receive an offer for the job and was laid off when her current job ended. Smith $n_v$ believes that she was the victim of discrimination based on her physical disability; she claims that during the interview many references were made to her disability and that the interviewer always addressed questions to the sign language interpreter and never made eye contact with her. She feels that she was at a disadvantage in taking the skills tests.

Her prospective employer claims that had she passed the tests she would have been hired and her disability would have been accommodated. The employer argues that the testing standards were reasonably necessary for the efficient performance of the work. The standards in Table $3\mathrm{.}6$ are being justified as bona fide occupational requirements $($BFORs$).$ Smith has now filed a complaint with her provincial human rights commission.

Questions

Should Smith have received a job offer? Why or why not? $($In answering this and the following questions, base your arguments on the court cases presented in this chapter.$)$

Was Smith the victim of discrimination because of her disability?

Did she receive appropriate accommodation?

Are the employer's standards defensible as a BFOR?

Based on the material presented in this chapter, do you think the human rights commission will support her claim of discrimination?

If you were the employer's legal counsel, how would you defend the employer at a human rights tribunal that is called to hear Smith's complaint? What would you advise your client to do with respect to the charge?