Human Rights Legislation Group
Queen's University-
Meeting Highlights
-
Workplace Harassment: the Duty to Respond
- Red Button Issue: Written Complaint
- Red Button Issue: Verbal Complaint
- Excuse: Workplace culture of joking
- Excuse: Promise of confidentiality
- Excuse: Alleged harasser does not work here
- Excuse: Complainant does not work here
- Excuse: Alleged harasser is a manager
- Excuse: Complainant did not come forward
- Inadequate Response for coworkers
- Inadequate Response for Complainant
- Remedial action leads to retaliation
- Meeting the Test: Employer's Response
- Accessibility
- Non-Code Harassment
- Online Training in Accessible Customer Service
-
Recent Cases in Accommodation (Employment)
- Hydro-Quebec
- McGill University
- Honda v Keays
- Hayes v Yukon College
- United Brotherhood
- Senyk v WFG Agency Network
- Kerr v Boehringer
- ADM Milling Co
- ADGA Group
- Toronto Police Association
- Hill v University of Waterloo
- Unger v B.C. College of Optics
- Lenihan v British Columbia
- CB v Emergency
- MF v Capilano Golf and Country Club
- J.B. v Fraser Milner Casgrain
- Gooding
- Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers
- Direct Energy and Communications
- Manitoba Government
- Communications, Energy and Paperworkers
- Recent Cases in Accommoation (Education)
- Religious Accommodation
- Religious Discrimination
- Sexual Harassment
- Sexual Assault
- Workplace Violence
- Workplace Harassment
- Freedom of speech on Facebook
- Family Status
- Racial discrimination
- Cases involving Bill 168
- Students with mental health issues
- Staff with mental health issues
- Faculty with mental health issues
-
Workplace Harassment: the Duty to Respond