The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered Convergys, a call centre operator, to pay $20,000 in damages to a blind job applicant after finding the company failed in its duty to accommodate him during the hiring process in 20171. The Tribunal ruled that the company’s internal testing of accessibility software was insufficient and that it failed to properly engage with the applicant, Erik Burggraaf, to find a workable solution.
The case dates back to August 2017, when Mr. Burggraaf applied for a frontline Sales Associate position at the respondents’ call centre in Welland, Ontario. The evidence confirmed that Mr. Burggraaf, who is blind, successfully passed an initial telephone pre-screening interview. He was then invited to an in-person interview, which he attended on August 23, 2017. During this interview, the discussion turned to workplace accommodations. Mr. Burggraaf testified that he was asked to describe what he would require. He requested a screen reader, such as JAWS or the non-visual desktop access program NVDA, along with a braille display, which is a hardware device that translates on-screen text into braille. He also indicated that training materials would need to be in an accessible format and that he would require two headsets: one for the screen reader and one for customer calls.
The parties acknowledged that they discussed the possibility that the company’s proprietary software might not be compatible with the screen reader, and that testing would be required. Mr. Burggraaf left the interview with the understanding that the company would explore these accommodations and contact him.
Internal emails from Convergys, which were presented as evidence, showed that the company was aware of Mr. Burggraaf’s disability and accommodation needs. An email dated August 11, 2017, noted a “potential new hire that disclosed to us that he is blind.” This email also revealed that the company had employed a blind individual several years prior but “eventually needed to part ways” because “despite our best efforts, we could not make client systems compatible.”
Following the interview, the company’s internal teams, including IT and operations, began investigating. The Welland call centre, the Tribunal noted, serviced a single third-party client, AT&T, and used AT&T’s proprietary software and tools. The respondents’ witness, Natalie Paris, testified that extensive work occurred internally to find a solution. An IT operations employee, Alex Trzok, sent an email on August 31, 2017, detailing his testing of several free or trial versions of screen-reading programs, including NVDA, Thunder, and Serotek. Mr. Trzok reported that these programs did not “read the majority of elements of client tools (clarify, or anything else that opens through JAVA)” and that finding a screen reader to interact with the client’s CRM was “proving to be a significant challenge.”
Crucially, throughout this internal testing period, from late August to mid-September 2017, no one from Convergys contacted Mr. Burggraaf to discuss these findings. Mr. Burggraaf testified that his resume, which the company had, detailed his extensive experience in access technology, including testing and training on screen readers and braille readers for organizations like the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) and various government departments.
On or around September 14, 2017, Mr. Burggraaf received a voicemail from Convergys. He was told that he was a qualified candidate and had done well in the interview, but that the company could not proceed with his application. The reason given was that the IT team had tested various software programs and none of them worked “cohesively” with their client’s systems. He was, therefore, refused the position.
Mr. Burggraaf subsequently filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging discrimination in employment based on his disability and a failure by Convergys to meet its duty to accommodate.
In the decision, dated October 17, 2025, Adjudicator Romona Gananathan found that the case for discrimination was clearly established. The parties did not dispute that Mr. Burggraaf is a person with a disability under the Human Rights Code, nor did they dispute that his disability was the reason he was not hired. The burden of proof therefore shifted to Convergys to demonstrate that it could not have accommodated Mr. Burggraaf up to the point of undue hardship.
Adjudicator Gananathan found that Convergys failed in this duty on two distinct levels: procedurally and substantively.
The procedural duty to accommodate, the Adjudicator wrote, requires a “co-operative and collaborative process” between the employer and the individual. The Tribunal found that Convergys failed in this procedural duty when it did not explore accommodation solutions further with Mr. Burggraaf after the initial interview. Despite the IT team identifying specific barriers with the client’s JAVA-based tools, no one from the company contacted Mr. Burggraaf to discuss these issues, ask for his input, or see if he could suggest workarounds. Given his specific expertise in accessibility testing, which was noted on his resume, the Tribunal found he “would likely have been able to suggest other programs or assist the respondents in finding alternative accommodation solutions that could have worked for him, had he been consulted.” The Tribunal held that by failing to include Mr. Burggraaf in the process after the interview, the company “failed in their procedural duty to accommodate.”
The Tribunal also found that Convergys failed to meet its substantive duty, which requires the employer to prove that accommodating the employee’s needs would actually result in undue hardship, considering factors like cost and health and safety. Convergys argued that the ability to independently navigate AT&T’s proprietary software was a bona fide occupational requirement. However, the Adjudicator was not convinced, finding that Convergys “did not provide sufficient evidence to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the standard could not be met by a blind person, given the appropriate tools.”
The Tribunal noted that Convergys presented no evidence on the potential costs of accommodation, which is a key factor in the undue hardship analysis. Mr. Burggraaf had testified that the cost of software like JAWS was discussed in his interview, ranging from $1,200 to $2,400, but the company did not argue that this cost was prohibitive. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Convergys consulted with external accessibility experts, such as the CNIB, or pursued options with its client, AT&T, which the Tribunal noted “also could have Code-related human rights obligations.”
The applicant’s expert witness, Giuseppina D’Intino, an accessibility consultant, testified that technologies like refreshable braille display are often “plug and play” and that proper accessibility testing requires a combination of automated testing and “user experience testing with someone that is familiar with the technology.” The Tribunal accepted her evidence, concluding that Convergys’s internal IT tests were insufficient to establish undue hardship.
Having found that Convergys discriminated against Mr. Burggraaf by failing in both its procedural and substantive duties, the Tribunal turned to the remedy.
For injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, the applicant sought $20,000. The Tribunal awarded the full amount, accepting Mr. Burggraaf’s testimony on the “substantial impact” the rejection had on him. He testified that he had been job hunting for nearly two years, was “couch surfing” and financially stressed, and that the refusal made him “cynical” and caused him to question his abilities. The Adjudicator found that Mr. Burggraaf was “particularly vulnerable” and that the impact was significant “because he clearly would have been hired into the position… but for his disability.”
Mr. Burggraaf also sought lost wages from September 2017 to May 1, 2018, when he secured other employment, calculating the amount based on a full-time work week. However, the Tribunal noted that Mr. Burggraaf was also enrolled as a full-time college student during this entire period. The Adjudicator found it more likely he would have pursued part-time work, which he had been told was an option. The Tribunal therefore awarded lost wages based on 20 hours per week at the prevailing minimum wage, totaling $8,472.
The Tribunal also ordered Convergys to pay pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the amounts. As a public interest remedy, the Tribunal ordered the company to “develop human rights and accommodation policies in hiring that specifically apply to blind persons” and to review its interview process to ensure it is accessible.
Read about other human rights cases here.
