Toxic Work Environment and Investigation of Concern? That Still Might Not Be Enough to Warrant a Discrimination Claim
September 27, 2024
Article by:
Sarina Gill
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
In Thomas v. Signals Design Group, 2024 BCHRT 135, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex. The complainant alleged she received radically different treatment as compared to her male counterparts and had to resign from employment because of the toxic work environment.
The complainant worked as a digital director and reported to the senior vice-president at the employer. She alleged the senior VP admonished her in front of staff on multiple occasions and, during a meeting at which she was not present, he told staff she was “unprofessional” and not present because she was “mad at him and he didn’t know why”.
When the complainant spoke to the senior VP about issues regarding another employee, he wrote back saying, “In the future, please do not throw [human resources] on me especially when you should have a better eye on your team … If you had a better idea what they’re doing, we would not be here.” The complainant said this was another example of him being condescending after she confronted him about issues in the workplace. She considered his behaviour to be harassing and degrading.
The complainant resigned but agreed to work through her notice period. During that period, she had further negative interactions with the senior VP, which prompted her to make a formal complaint to the employer. She wrote to the employer a second time when, during a team meeting, she asked the senior VP to “take things offline” and he responded that if she felt victimized or afraid, she should “call the police”. To the complainant, this was another example of a toxic work environment.
The employer’s investigation into the complaint consisted of talking to the senior VP about the allegations. In response, he raised concerns about the complainant’s attendance and performance. The employer then asked the complainant for her response to the senior VP’s concerns about her.
The Tribunal accepted that the senior VP’s conduct, and the employer’s response to it, created a toxic environment such that the complainant felt she had no choice but to leave her employment. However, that was not enough to persuade the Tribunal that the complainant had been subjected to prohibited discrimination in employment. Her allegation that her sex was a factor in the behaviour of the senior VP and the employer was speculative. A bald statement was insufficient to take her complaint out of the realm of conjecture, and she did not provide evidence of differential treatment based on her sex.
The Tribunal also considered the complainant’s allegation that the employer did not respond appropriately to her concerns about the senior VP. The Tribunal found that the employer appeared to have abandoned its investigation of the senior VP and seemed to have investigated the complainant’s work performance instead. It noted that the employer’s investigation was “concerning” and “could have been significantly improved”. In spite of that, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the complainant ever told the employer that the senior VP’s conduct toward her was linked to or connected with her sex, and there was no evidence that suggested the employer should have known that. As a result, the Tribunal was not convinced that the employer’s response to the complainant’s complaint required any further scrutiny.
Although the Tribunal acknowledged the presence of a toxic environment for the complainant and had concerns about the employer’s investigation, it concluded that the complainant had no reasonable prospect of proving her sex was a factor in the adverse impact she experienced in her employment and dismissed her complaint.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
September 27, 2024
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
In Thomas v. Signals Design Group, 2024 BCHRT 135, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex. The complainant alleged she received radically different treatment as compared to her male counterparts and had to resign from employment because of the toxic work environment.
The complainant worked as a digital director and reported to the senior vice-president at the employer. She alleged the senior VP admonished her in front of staff on multiple occasions and, during a meeting at which she was not present, he told staff she was “unprofessional” and not present because she was “mad at him and he didn’t know why”.
When the complainant spoke to the senior VP about issues regarding another employee, he wrote back saying, “In the future, please do not throw [human resources] on me especially when you should have a better eye on your team … If you had a better idea what they’re doing, we would not be here.” The complainant said this was another example of him being condescending after she confronted him about issues in the workplace. She considered his behaviour to be harassing and degrading.
The complainant resigned but agreed to work through her notice period. During that period, she had further negative interactions with the senior VP, which prompted her to make a formal complaint to the employer. She wrote to the employer a second time when, during a team meeting, she asked the senior VP to “take things offline” and he responded that if she felt victimized or afraid, she should “call the police”. To the complainant, this was another example of a toxic work environment.
The employer’s investigation into the complaint consisted of talking to the senior VP about the allegations. In response, he raised concerns about the complainant’s attendance and performance. The employer then asked the complainant for her response to the senior VP’s concerns about her.
The Tribunal accepted that the senior VP’s conduct, and the employer’s response to it, created a toxic environment such that the complainant felt she had no choice but to leave her employment. However, that was not enough to persuade the Tribunal that the complainant had been subjected to prohibited discrimination in employment. Her allegation that her sex was a factor in the behaviour of the senior VP and the employer was speculative. A bald statement was insufficient to take her complaint out of the realm of conjecture, and she did not provide evidence of differential treatment based on her sex.
The Tribunal also considered the complainant’s allegation that the employer did not respond appropriately to her concerns about the senior VP. The Tribunal found that the employer appeared to have abandoned its investigation of the senior VP and seemed to have investigated the complainant’s work performance instead. It noted that the employer’s investigation was “concerning” and “could have been significantly improved”. In spite of that, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the complainant ever told the employer that the senior VP’s conduct toward her was linked to or connected with her sex, and there was no evidence that suggested the employer should have known that. As a result, the Tribunal was not convinced that the employer’s response to the complainant’s complaint required any further scrutiny.
Although the Tribunal acknowledged the presence of a toxic environment for the complainant and had concerns about the employer’s investigation, it concluded that the complainant had no reasonable prospect of proving her sex was a factor in the adverse impact she experienced in her employment and dismissed her complaint.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.