Here’s your weekend dose of the machinations of your very own Human Rights systems – a short one this time.
First: According to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, the concept of a “probationary period” at work doesn’t apply as long as you belong to a protected class of people. The Tribunal was also doing its mind-reading act in this case:
I have no doubt that Ms. Ferjo believed that she was not terminating the complainant “because of her pregnancy” in that sense, however, a finding that factors related to the complainant’s pregnancy were among the reasons for the termination is sufficient for a finding of liability under the Code.
There is, however, sufficient evidence to establish that the complainant was exhibiting behaviour which was disruptive and affecting her ability to concentrate and focus on her training.
So, if you deny continued employment to a probationary employee who exhibits behaviour which is disruptive and affects her ability to concentrate and focus on her training? Even if you weren’t thinking it, you must have done it because of some prohibited grounds! Guilty! That will be $12,500 plus two months wages.
Second: The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission came down squarely on the side of government when it came to forcing marriage commissioners to perform same-sex marriage. Now it’s up to Saskatchewan’s highest court to rule on the matter.
Third: I have a suggestion for those who are pursuing the Human Rights complaint against the federal government over equitable funding for social services. Keep in mind that the complaint alleges that the federal government discriminates because it doesn’t offer those under their jurisdiction – First Nations – the same funding and benefits as some provinces do. So my suggestion is this: why don’t you launch complaints against the provincial governments to stop discriminating against those under their jurisdiction by giving them too much? No doubt the provincial governments would be much more cooperative than the feds in mediation…