Workplace investigation helps avoid costly litigation
By Sheila Mecking and Lauren Sorel
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”) recently dismissed a complaint of discrimination in the workplace, stating that the employer’s investigation, and settlement offer, adequately resolved the complaint.1
The BCHRT, in reaching their decision to dismiss the complaint, reviewed whether the steps taken by the employer were reasonable and effective. In making this determination, the BCHRT must be persuaded that the employer 1) took the complainant’s discrimination complaint seriously; 2) appropriately addressed the impact on the complainant; and 3) took appropriate steps to ensure the discrimination would not happen again.
Salanguit v. Parq Vancouver and another
In this case, an employee of Parq Vancouver (“Parq”) filed a discrimination complaint on the basis of disability with the BCHRT against her co-worker and Parq.
Ms. Salanguit, an employee of over a decade, raised a bullying concern with her supervisor on May 22, 2019, regarding a co-worker, Shanna Abonitalla. Sometime later, Mr. Salanguit, who has a speech impediment, learned that Ms. Abonitalla had been impersonating and mimicking her speech maliciously in front of other coworkers. On July 14, 2019, Ms. Salanguit’s further advised Parq of Ms. Abonitalla’s behaviour, which was claimed to have escalated to discrimination on the basis of disability.
On July 17, 2019, Parq promptly responded to the discrimination allegation by commencing a workplace investigation. Over the course of two months, Parq investigated Ms. Salanguit’s discrimination complaint, having interviewed several witnesses, including an eyewitness who corroborated Ms. Salanguit’s allegation.
On September 18, 2019, following the conclusion of their investigation, Parq issued a “Final Written Warning” to Ms. Abonitalla advising that her conduct violated Parq’s policy against bullying and harassment, and notifying her that any further conduct of a similar nature would result in her dismissal. As a result, Ms. Abonitalla was required to apologize to Ms. Salanguit, which she completed by letter dated September 20, 2019. Parq also offered to facilitate a meeting between Ms. Salanguit and Ms. Abonitalla.
After having addressed the outcome of the investigation with the complainant and respondent, Parq continued their remedial actions. On October 8, 2019, Parq communicated with all employees in the department where the discrimination occurred, reminding them of the requirement of respectful conduct, and further instructing staff to avoid teasing and excluding co-workers. Parq advised that any such conduct would be investigated and could lead to disciplinary actions. Additionally, in June 2021 Parq reviewed and updated their bullying and harassment policy to include “unlawful discrimination”. Employees were then required to attend in-person training for the updated policy.
Impact on employers
This case is informative for employers, as it provides insight into what human rights’ tribunals require of employers responding to accusations of discrimination. In dismissing the complaint of discrimination in the workplace, the BCHRT held that the measures taken by the employer were substantial enough to meet the standards of corrective action expected under human rights legislation. The BCHRT highlighted the employer’s favourable actions as follows:
“At the end of the day, the evidence is that Parq had a policy to deal with the discrimination allegation and it did so in a direct and attentive manner. It is important for the Tribunal to encourage employers to conduct themselves in this way. … This is especially the case where an employer demonstrates respect and support for its employee, takes responsibility for its mistakes, and tries to do better…” 2
[emphasis added]
Takeaways for employers
Although every case and investigation is unique, this decision provides valuable guidance for employers. To protect themselves from unnecessary litigation, employers should:
- Implement and follow an up-to-date discrimination, bullying and harassment policy;
- Guarantee a thorough and fair investigation that is conducted immediately after receiving notification of an instance of bullying, harassment or discrimination;
- At the very least, this will include interviewing the complainant, respondent, and any witnesses, in addition to reviewing any relevant security footage, documentation, etc.
- Appropriately attend to the impact of the complaint on the complainant and other affected employees; and
- Take corrective measures to ensure that discrimination, if substantiated, does not occur again. This includes disciplinary measures, implementing and updating policies, and providing employees with adequate training.
This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the authors, or a member of our Labour & Employment Group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
1 Salanguit v. Parq Vancouver and another, 2024 BCHRT 119
2 Salanguit v. Parq Vancouver and another, 2024 BCHRT 119 at para 36.
Archive
Killian McParland The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently released its decision in Warren v. Football Canada, 2020 NSSC 29 – a protracted legal dispute that began with a 15-year-old football player who was accidentally…
Read MoreSadira Jan and James Gamblin Our Firm is currently using a program called Closing Folders that is designed to streamline transaction processes and provide better service to clients. In light of the COVID-19 Pandemic restrictions,…
Read More*Last updated: April 9, 2020 Maurice Chiasson, QC , Sara Scott, P. Eng, Madeleine Coats and Justin Song (송진원) The provincial and federal governments are working in tandem to provide support to businesses during the…
Read MoreRichard Niedermayer, TEP The current COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting declarations of states of emergency, public health orders and national guidelines on travel, business openings, self-isolation and social distancing have affected everyone in Canada and…
Read MoreJoe Thorne On March 26, 2020, the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Act received Royal Assent. Among other things, that statute brought into force the Temporary Variation of Statutory Deadlines Act (the “Act”).1 The Act addresses concerns…
Read MoreBrian Tabor, QC and Jennifer Murphy On April 1, 2020, Nova Scotia’s new Tourist Accommodations Registration Act and its regulations come into force, repealing and replacing the Tourist Accommodations Act. With the exception of those…
Read MoreStephanie Stapleford and Brent McCumber, P.Eng. In the span of mere months, COVID-19 has significantly impacted lives and livelihoods all over the world. The pandemic has affected individuals’ health, well-being and financial stability, and measures…
Read More*Last updated: March 31, 2020 Brian Tabor, QC, Matthew Newell, Colin Piercey and Madeleine Coats On March 27, 2020, Premier Stephen McNeil announced further business supports in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This includes…
Read MoreTwila Reid and Sarah Byrne On March 26, 2020, the Newfoundland House of Assembly met with a minimum quorum of members to table and pass Bill 33 – COVID-19 Pandemic Response Act (“Act”). This omnibus…
Read MoreBrent McCumber, P.Eng. On March 24, 2020, the Government of Canada introduced legislation to implement its economic response plan to COVID-19, namely, the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act ( “Emergency Response Act”). This legislation received Royal…
Read More