Concern that candidate was wrongly eliminated due to a bias or barrier

This summary highlights the importance of candidates providing complete and relevant information in response to screening questions to demonstrate how they meet job qualifications.

Jurisdiction

The review of the investigation request was conducted in accordance with section 66 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13).

Issue

The review aimed to determine whether an investigation was warranted to examine the concern that a candidate was wrongly eliminated at the screening stage of the appointment process due to their disability.

Facts

The candidate was informed that the department had eliminated their application from the appointment process at the screening stage because they did not meet an essential experience qualification assessed by a screening question.

The candidate, an employee of the department, alleged they were eliminated due to an error or an omission, because they had the required experience. The candidate also alleged they were disadvantaged in the appointment process because of a disability. They asserted that the nature of the position may have led to their elimination, as assessors may have perceived that significant accommodation would be required for them to fulfill the duties of the position.

The analysis of the collected information found that the assessment tool used was linked to the required qualification. The job opportunity clearly instructed applicants:

• to provide detailed and contextualized examples in response to the screening questions, including dates, duration and concrete demonstrations of the breadth of their experience
• that a list of current or past responsibilities would not be sufficient
• that not following these instructions would result in the rejection of their application

The candidate’s response to the screening question listed tasks from a previous role without describing or contextualizing them in detail. The candidate’s brief answer about their tasks did not demonstrate the required experience. Our review found no indication of error in how their response to the screening question was assessed.

The analysis also found no indication that the assessors were aware of the candidate’s disability, or that operational requirements influenced the screening of the experience qualifications. Although some operational tasks may have required adjustments or workplace accommodation, there is no indication that these were considered during the screening stage. The job opportunity also clearly indicated the department’s commitment to balancing operational needs with individual circumstances. The candidate’s disability was not mentioned in their résumé, and no accommodation measures were requested for the screening stage.

Because the screening assessors were not informed of the candidate’s disability, there was no indication the candidate was excluded or hindered from participating fully in the screening phase due to a disability. There was also no indication that operational requirements played any role at this stage of the appointment process.

Decision not to conduct an investigation

The information obtained from the source of the investigation request and from the department did not suggest the possibility that an error, an omission or improper conduct may have occurred in the treatment of the candidate’s candidacy (including from a bias or barrier that disadvantages people who belong to an equity-seeking group). As a result, the Commission determined that an investigation was not warranted under section 66 of the Public Service Employment Act. An investigation was not conducted.

File number: 25-26-09