The Lynch List, 16-Sep-2010

First: Can workplaces set dress codes for reasons other than personnel safety? I’m sure you’ve heard by now of the complaint against the Richmond Shark Club in which a bartender alleges she was told to dress provocatively. My first impression is that one’s appearance is a bona fide job requirement for many service jobs, and the type of dress is a part of that. If that means that some people of certain “body types” are unable to find employment in these fields, how is that discriminatory? I don’t have the “body type” to be a runway model, can I lodge a complaint?

Second: BCF delves into the failed complaint against Free Dominion, noting that the CHRC seems to have things backwards (squeamish alert – don’t scroll down).  Distributing a flyer that shows a picture of a Christian girl decapitated by Muslim fanatics may be a hate crime – against Muslims. Funny how that works.

Third: A Christian street ministry is taking the City of Calgary to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for refusing requests to hold a flag raising ceremony at City Hall. You can’t use the devil’s tools for the work of Christ…

Fourth: The BCHRT loves their he-said she-said soap operas. Two co-workers (one male and one female) get drunk at the end of a Friday workday, exchange an intoxicated conversation that neither could fully remember. The male participant concluded that she made some advances at him, they have several exchanges, once in a compromising location, about the substance of the drunken conversation, and whether she was really drunk.

The owner of the company reprimanded the male worker for harassment twice, and subsequently laid off the woman who was hired as short-term employment. The BCHRT nevertheless ruled that the woman had been let go because of the allegations of harassment, and awarded her $8000.

The moral of the lesson? Don’t hire a 21-year old girl to work in a steel fabrication shop.

Fifth: The fork-and-spoon case in Montreal is going to appeal. Thank goodness.

Sixth: Try to evict someone who owes $1,355 in outstanding rent? Ho-hum. Try to evict a transsexual who owes $1,355 in outstanding rent? Human rights violation!

Seventh: The courts deliver another smackdown to the Human Rights Tribunal! Remember that disabled University of Victoria “student” that refused to move out of his apartment for many years after ceasing to become a student, complaining to the Human Rights Tribunal when they tried to evict him? Well, the BC Supreme Court has ordered the immediate repossession of the suite and fined Gerd’son over $10,000 for overholding charges.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: