Resignation woes – millions awarded for wrongfully accepted resignation

It is well established that employers need to accommodate employees with disabilities, including mental health conditions, up to the point of undue hardship. But what happens when an employee with a known mental health disability abruptly resigns? Can the employer accept it at face value? Is anything more required?

That was the issue at hand in the case of Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp., 2026 AHRC 26 and 2026 AHRC 71. This landmark decision from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is a cautionary tale against accepting resignations under dubious circumstances, especially when human rights considerations are at play. The facts are as follows.

Background facts:

• The Applicant, David Volpi ("Volpi"), worked as physiotherapist for the Respondent, Lifemark Health Corp ("Lifemark") for approximately 16 years.
• Volpi had diagnosed mental disabilities, as defined under the Alberta Human Rights Act (the "AHRA"), including Bipolar II Disorder.
• Volpi had disclosed his mental disabilities to his former manager and arrangements had been made to accommodate him in the workplace. For years, Volpi successfully managed his mental health conditions and work obligations by taking time off when necessary.
• In 2015, Volpi was assigned a new supervisor. The new supervisor had a different approach, and this created stress for Volpi.
• By late 2015 and into 2016, Volpi's mental health was deteriorating. He disclosed this to his supervisor and took a break in December 2015 and January 2016.
• In June 2016, Volpi again told his supervisor something was wrong and requested more time off to deal with his mental health.
• Volpi was granted one week off in early July 2016. While off, he saw his doctor and was referred to a psychiatrist. Upon returning to work, Volpa was not feeling better and advised his supervisor he needed a longer period off to deal with his mental health.
• This request was not immediately granted. Among other things, Volpi's supervisor told him he couldn't take the time off due to other staff's vacation schedules and pushed Volpi to agree to not take time off until the beginning of October 2016.
• Volpi continued to work between July and October 2016, during which time his mental health continued to decline.
• On September 30, 2016, the day before he was scheduled to take his leave, Volpi submitted a "hastily typed" resignation letter. His supervisor asked if anything could be done to change his mind, but no inquiries were made if it had to do with his mental health. During the human rights hearing, Volpi submitted evidence he was in a hypomanic state at the time of submitting the letter.
• Volpi later made inquiries about returning to work at Lifemark and informed them that he had been hospitalized following his resignation. When he was told he could reapply and did not do so, Lifemark did not make any further inquiries or offer to rescind the resignation or re-employ him.
• Volpi filed a human rights complaint, alleging discrimination on the basis of medical disability.

Analysis:

• Three of the key issues in the application were as follows:
• Had Lifemark discriminated against Volpi by delaying his leave request?
  • The Tribunal found that Lifemark's actions in delaying Volpi's leave were discriminatory.
  • The Tribunal found that the delayal of the leave had an adverse impact on Volpi as it contributed to his mental health decline.
  • The Tribunal also found that Volpi advised his supervisor that he required time off to deal with his mental health.
  • The Tribunal noted that even if he hadn't, Lifemark knew or ought to have known the request was related to mental health issues, or at a minimum, had a duty to inquire. In this regard, the Tribunal emphasized Volpi's history of asking for time off for mental health issues and being granted it.
• Had Lifemark discriminated against Volpi by accepting his resignation without inquiring whether it was connected to his mental disability?
  • The Tribunal found that Lifemark's acceptance of Volpi's resignation was discriminatory.
  • The Tribunal found that Volpi's resignation was a symptom of his mental disability.
  • The Tribunal held that, although Volpi did not expressly state he was resigning due to his mental health, on the facts of the case, Lifemark ought reasonably to have known Volpi's mental health contributed to his decision to resign. Lifemark should have paused prior to accepting the resignation to make real inquiries into Volpi's mental state.
  • The accepted resignation resulted in the loss of a 16-year employment relationship for Volpi. This was an adverse impact.
• Had Lifemark fulfilled the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship?
  • Lifemark did not accommodate to the point of undue hardship.
  • The Tribunal noted that Lifemark put forward no evidence that it ever turned its mind to whether Volpi was in need of accommodation for his disability either at the time of his request for a leave, when he submitted his resignation, or in its discussions with Volpi thereafter.
• Lifemark didn't properly engage in its duty to inquire or consider alternatives to accepting Volpi's resignation.

Outcome:

• Volpi was successful on his claim of discrimination.
• The Tribunal awarded Volpi over $1 million dollars in damages, plus interest, as follows:
  • He was awarded damages for injury to dignity in the amount of $40,000, plus interest.
  • He was also awarded damages for lost wages totaling $965,338.14, plus interest. This figure reflected Ms. Volpi's loss in earnings over a ten-year period, running from October 1, 2016 to the end of 2025. This figure represented what Volpi may have earned with Lifemark, but for the discriminatory loss of his employment.

Takeaways:

This case is a cautionary tale for employers. The financial repercussions of failing to inquire or accommodate medical disabilities can be costly – millions of dollars in fact.

That said, there were a lot of "misses" on the part of the employer that resulted in this hefty award. The employer knew the employee had a serious medical condition and a history of receiving workplace accommodations for same. Despite that, the employer failed to take any meaningful steps to inquire or accommodate the employee in the months leading up to his resignation, pressuring him to work despite communicated mental health concerns, and not making any inquiries to determine if his resignation was impact by his mental health status, despite the warning bells and dubious timing.

Employers – take this as a reminder that ignorance is not bliss. If you know or believe an employee has a medical condition that might be impacting their work, make appropriate inquiries, especially before making (or accepting) adverse employment decisions. Importantly, speak with legal counsel as we can provide guidance on how to handle these situations with care.

Employees – if you have concerns that your medical condition is not being accommodated at work or resulting in adverse treatment, speak with legal counsel to better understand your rights and entitlements.

In all cases, the team at Lee Workplace Law would be happy to assist.