Frank, who is 18 years old, applies for a job as a clerk in a sporting goods store in Ontario. The store manager is impressed with Frank and says...

In my answer to this question, I will discuss both sides of the issue where that seems useful.

One the one hand, you can say that the store manager has violated Frank’s human rights because he has refused to hire Frank on the basis of a traffic violation.  You can argue that a traffic violation is not relevant to the position Frank applied for.  People should have a right to be hired (or rejected) based on their actual qualifications for the job, not based on any other characteristic. 

On the other hand, you can argue that the store manager did not violate Frank’s rights.  There are two possible arguments here.  First, we can say that the careless driving conviction is relevant.  You can say that a person who would drive “without reasonable consideration for other persons” is a person who does not have a good moral character.  You want people with good characters working for you so this is relevant.  Second, you can say that society does not need to protect people from discrimination on the basis of criminal background.  We should not discriminate against women, minorities, the disabled, and other such groups, but people who commit crimes is not a group of this nature.

You can argue that we would be more lenient with a 17 year-old.  A 17 year-old has less capacity to control themselves.  We should expect that they would make bad choices at times.  On the other hand, you can also argue that a 17 year-old who would drive carelessly would be just as bad for your business as an 18 year-old who would do so.

Finally, I would argue that there is no way you can say that the manager violated Frank’s rights if Frank were applying for a job that involves driving.  The careless driving conviction would be directly and indubitably related to that job.  There would be no reason to say that the manager should not consider the conviction in that situation.