Cases Analysis: Discrimination in Employment

Case One: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2014/2014bchrt49/2014bchrt49.html

If this sample essay on"Cases Analysis: Discrimination in Employment" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

This is a case filed by Ms. Gerlich against The Flight Shops Inc(Flight Centre), accusing the respondents of discriminations in employment based on mental and physical disability which is contrary to s.13 of the Human Rights Code. Both the respondent and the complaint response showed that other proceedings were dealing with the same issue. The complainant wanted the Tribunal to postpone the processing of the claim pending completion of similar proceedings. Both parties were therefore called to give their submissions on whether to delay the proceedings of the complaint. What the decision arrived at by the Tribunal is therefore entirely concerned with the application to postpone the compliant.

Ms. Gerlich started working as a Travel Specialist employee for Flight Centre as of February 2006. She recounts that she had a physical disability since 2010 and was medically advised not to be working overtime. She also adds that she was diagnosed with a mental disability in March 2012.According to her job description, she was supposed to work overtime beyond the normal forty-four hours per week which was beyond her ability. She went ahead and sought a reduction of her working hours based on her medical information, but the defendant refused the request hence violating her rights as an employee. This was a direct discrimination because the employer would clearly see her condition and her medical evidence but could not grant Ms. Gerlich her request. She, therefore, suffered discrimination from September 2010 until March 26th, 2013 when her employment was terminated.

Due to excess working hours, Ms. Gerlich required medical leaves in November 2011 and March 2012 and could only work as a part timer between November 13th, 2012 and January 2nd, 2013 after which she needed another medical leave due to her disabilities. She was later cleared medically and got back to work on March 11th, 2013 but went back to her leave after she had worked for a few hours. On 26th March 2013, her employment was terminated because of what she thinks was the lawsuit she had started against the defendant and due to her attitude and how she carried herself. Her complaint shows that there are Small Claims actions for breach of contract and severance payment which she adds that is not capable of dealing with the nature of her complaint.

Ms. Gerlich is against the application to suspend any further proceedings of her complaint arguing that it is not involved in any other proceeding capable of dealing with the subject of her complaint. She says that her allegations and claims are different.

In their response, the Respondent says that it had accommodated the complainants applications for reduced work hours at a substantial hardship for it and other workers. The respondent, however, says that as from 2011, Ms. Gerlich showed unacceptable and disrespectful behavior in spite of being warned severally about it. After she had resumed working for a few hours, Ms. Gerlich left and left and later started issuing legislation threats. She then initiated a Small Claims action which was not compatible to her continued employment leading to her dismissal for cause.

The defendant applied for a long term stay or short term suspension of the compliant pending the result of the other ongoing proceedings. They reveal that the complainant filed a Work Safe BC (WBC) claim for back injury and the appeal to this claim was heard on December 2013 by the WCAT. The complainant later initiated another claim in March 2013on mental disability basis which was dismissed. After her dismissal, Ms. Gerlich Filed Small Claims action for unlawful dismissal on May 14th, 2013 giving the same facts as those in her Tribunal compliant. The defendant filed an application seeking to suspend the said proceedings.

In its conclusion, the tribunal decided that the application is attempting to defer Ms. Gerlichs human rights complaint be denied. Although the defendant argues that there are other similar proceedings concerning the complaints that are ongoing, it did not provide any evidence indicating so. Ms. Gerlich compliant can only be dealt with by the tribunal, and that is why she is seeking to disagree with the application to defer it.

From the above-analyzed case, an employer can learn that respecting employee rights is very crucial in the day to day operations of the business. It is also advisable for employers to familiarize themselves with the Human Right clauses that affect their employees, stakeholders and anyone involved in their business.

Case Two: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt7/2016bchrt7.html

The second case was filled by Ms. Miller against Integrated Health Clinic Inc on September 25th, 2015. Her allegations were discrimination in employment based on sex (pregnancy) which is contrary to the Human Rights Code. The complainant, who was an employee of the defendant, was on maternity leave as from March 2014 to March 2015. When she went back to work after the leave, she found out that her employment had been terminated which she thought was due to pregnancy. Ms. Miller did not, however, make her complaint within the six months filing limit which made the tribunal seek submissions from the defendant on the timelines of the complaint.

In her complaint, Ms. Miller argues that she delayed in filing her complaint because she had applied to the Clinic on August 10th 2015 seeking to initiate a discussion to resolve the issue informally. On application for a discussion, the Clinic requested for some time to give a feedback but did not give any until September 15th, 2015 which was a few days after the filing timeline had expired. She also argues that the tribunal should file her compliant since it is a way of ensuring equity and respect and appreciation to pregnancy. The concept of fairness was however not related to this case because according to her, it was pregnancy and not equity issues which led to the termination of her employment by the Clinic. Ms. Miller adds that a delay of two weeks is an enough evidence to determine the complaint.

In response to the allegations, the respondent (Clinic) confirms that the complaint was filed two weeks late, and the reason for the delay is not enough to have the complaint filed for the public interest. The defendant also says that the Complainant had not given any legal explanations for her delay and that she was capable of filing the complaint within the set time limit. Ms Miller has not indicated that she was not aware of the deadline which means she has no basis of justifying her delay. According to the respondent, there is nothing unusual about the complaint that would be of public interest and again Ms. Miller should have gone ahead and filed the complaints as she waited a feedback from the clinic.

Although Ms. Miller should have filled the complaint within the six months of the contravention, the parties did not state any working days. The tribunal has the defection to accept Mr. Millers late filed a complaint. However, she must establish that it is in the public interest to file the complaint and that no party will experience significant damage due to the delayed filing. The respondent had no reason whatsoever to argue that the complainant had to establish a compelling reason to accept her complaint in the interest of the public. The tribunal considered Ms. Miller's filing delay of two-week mild considering other factors favoring acceptance of her complaint.

The Clinic did not give her feedback before the elapsing of the six months timeline even after she had informed the Clinic of her intentions to file her complaint should the feedback be negative. Although Ms. Miller was aware of the deadline, she did not file her complaint within the timelines as she was seeking informal and had communicated her intentions to the defendant. After all that analysis and justification, the tribunal accepted Ms. Miler's complaint about filing and encouraged both parties to continue their efforts to resolve the complaint in good faith.

Based on the analysis of this second case, employers should learn to respect the rights of employees and act according to the stipulated code of conduct in the Human Rights Code. Employees have rights in employment and employers should not violate these rights whatsoever.