This is a provincial law since most of the employees, managers and even owners of the gas station are violating the section on human rights in the workplace prohibited grounds. They are violating this law because they are racist towards Simon, which is direct discrimination because he even says they would insult him and stare at him while talking about racist comments, which is direct because they are clearly directing it at him and they know he knows, and the owner didn't want to hire him because of his ethnicity, which he didn't say in the study, but what he did say was that the owner didn't want to hire him until he had to beg, which doesn't really violate the rules. code because there's no proof that's the reason, but he shows a lot of racism when Simon got to know him better, meaning he didn't want to hire him because he was black and he thought black people were the reason the crime rate was rising in the community. They also broke another law, mainly the shift manager's law, the Ontario Health and Safety Act, and they violated the right to know, because every worker has the right to know, which means that he has the right to training, which Simon did not obtain. I had a quick glimpse. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The owner did not have a valid reason to fire Simon because the owner's complaint to fire Simon would say something like s 'he wasn't working hard enough. and does not know how to use the equipment, but this is not acceptable and is not a good enough reason because Simon has not received training on the equipment and machines and he has a right to know. So if he didn't get the training and they violated his rights, they shouldn't fire him, even if it was him. Another reason they can't really fire him because of this is because they have no proof it was him, because when he was using it it worked fine, the fault shouldn't be immediately blamed on him and I think discrimination and racism play a big role. by him getting fired. If on the other hand they had shown no signs of discrimination and racism and had proof that Simon had broken the machine and provided training, then they could have written to him and given him a warning. Some additional factors that would be considered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission may include: They will consider the strategic implications of legal challenges, the reason I say this is because it says there needs to be proof of 'a jurisdiction to fire someone, and also that everyone receives equal training, which is in this case he was barely trained and only provided him with a brief verbal description, and they didn't have no longer proof that he had broken the machine. Another factor to consider is prohibited motives and racism because as Simon says they talk about a lot of racist things and they watch it while they say it and even if they don't watch it if you say black people are the reason for the increased crime rate in the community, you are targeting all black people and that includes your employees (Simon) which should not happen and is not legal. One of the last factors they might investigate is direct discrimination because during the interview the owner was sort of racist and was judging Simon on his ethical appearance and didn't want to hire him because of that until until Simon convinces him.