Human Rights Legislation Group
Queen's University-
Meeting Highlights
-
Meeting #2: Workplace Harassment
- 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
-
Meeting #3: Accessibility and Accommodation
- 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
- Das
- Hickey
- Harris
- Meeting #4: Religious Discrimination and Accommodation
- Meeting #5: Sexual Harassment and Assault
- Meeting #6: Bill 168
- Meeting #7: Roundup
- Meeting #8: Mental Disability and Bill 168 Roundup
- Meeting #9: Roundup (including Bullying)
- Meeting#10: Aboriginal Issues
- Meeting #12 Accommodation Roundup
-
Meeting #2: Workplace Harassment
Remedial Action leads to Retaliation...
Bottom Line
Employer must take swift action to respond to racial harassment; and it must also ensure that the complainant is protected against retaliation.
Case
Workplace Harassment
In Coward v Tower Chrysler Ltd., A racialized employee was being harassed by the senior salesperson in a car dealership. He went to his manager to complain.
Employer Response
After receiving the complaint of racial harassment, the employer ‘talked’ about it to the alleged harasser, who retaliated by threatening the complainant. The employer told both employees to settle down, thus imparting partial responsibility for the harassment on the complainat. After a repetition of harassing behavior, the alleged harasser was sent home for the last hour of the day. When the complainant insisted on being provided with a safe working environment in which to work, the manager warned him of the employment consequences of not working out his own problems, claiming that no one in this business will hire someone who can't handle his own problems. The complainant was later put on probation for poor performance and eventually he resigned.