poisoned work environment
Does an employee have to be “sexually” harassed in order for there to be a breach of the Human Rights Code? This issue was determined in a recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Under section 46.3 (1) of Ontario’s Human Rights Code, an employer may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of their employees. Such was the case in the recent Human Rights Tribunal decision.
A recent Ontario Human Rights case further underscores the employer’s ongoing duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, and that Code based harassment or discrimination constitutes a breach under the Human Rights Code of Ontario.
Arbitrator Deborah Leighton has made history in her recent decision on remedy in OPSEU (Ranger) v. Ontario (Ministry of Corrections) 2013 CanLii 50479, which was released this past July 2013 by awarding more than $100,000 in damages for breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the applicable collective agreement for discrimination, harassment and poisoned work environment.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with the 2014 compensation forecast, when a poisoned work environment becomes a constructive dismissal, and the difference between sexual harassment and harassment.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with EI parental benefits for a twin birth, another federal court ruling on discrimination regarding childcare obligations and how an employer responded to online harassment of management.
Two men are holding hands and occasionally kissing while waiting in line at a driver licensing office. A person waiting in line approaches the men calling them “fags” and telling them their behaviour is “disgusting”. The same person attempts to engage others waiting in the line to join in the demeaning discourse…