The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: Budget 2017’s proposed changes to maternity and parental leave; Bill 168 and compliance regarding violence provisions under OHSA; and employee sexual harassment and reprisal.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: An employee who was dismissed for not submitting a doctor’s note in a timely fashion; a firefighter who was reinstated after being dismissed for sexually harassing a co–worker; and human rights claims, made by a former employee, that were barred by terms of a final release received on termination.
In a recent case, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a substantial award of moral damages to an employee subjected to long–term sexual harassment, after she made a formal complaint to her manager.
As of the writing of this blog, Bill 26 has passed second reading and is before the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly for consultation and, so it remains to be seen if the above changes will come into force. That said, with the recent legislative attention on protecting employees with respect to sexual harassment and violence, it is likely that employers may soon need to revisit their policies and programs to account for domestic and sexual violence.
Defending a lawsuit is not the new black, or: If you stick your head in the sand for six years, the most likely outcome is suffocation
You have probably heard about the recent allegations of sexual assault against a WestJet pilot, and how WestJet failed to properly handle the allegation. Here is a quick summary: a former WestJet flight attendant, Mandalena Lewis, has filed a claim in the B.C. Supreme Court alleging that, after she reported that she was sexually assaulted on a layover in Hawaii in 2010, WestJet did not properly investigate the allegation. In fact, they chose to protect the pilot and eventually fired her for pursuing the matter.
In a recent matter heard before the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta (the Tribunal), it was decided that an employer discriminated against its employee in the course of her employment, on the ground of gender, in both sexual harassment and pregnancy. Such action is contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act. In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal had to address whether the employee had established a prima facie case of discrimination. If so, did the employer have a defence to the discrimination?
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: employers’ expanded obligations with respect to workplace harassment under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act; a pregnant employee who was awarded damages in discrimination claim; and the Ontario Ministry of Labour’s new Code of Practice for workplace harassment.
Ontario courts are rightly increasing their protection of employees from harassment and assault in the workplace. This case serves as a strong deterrent to employers and employees who do not comprehend or acknowledge the severe implications of their actions.
With the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s recent position on gender-specific dress codes, and with the increase of attention in the news regarding bars and restaurants requiring women to wear high heels, low-cut tops and short skirts, I thought it would be beneficial for our readers to get Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane’s take on the issue of gender specific and sexualized dress codes in the workplace, and what employers should be doing to ensure that their dress codes are in compliance with Ontario’s Human Rights Code.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: A case where an employee filed an Application alleging that he was subjected to differential treatment on the basis of Human Rights Code grounds ; a case where an employer was able to rely on a termination provision to justify the payment made to the employee when he was terminated without cause; and Ontario’s new legislation addressing sexual harassment (Bill 132).
On March 24, 2016, Ontario Court Justice William Horkins delivered his ruling: Ghomeshi has been acquitted of all sexual assault charges.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with a new Ontario Act that addresses sexual harassment; an employer’s implementation of a dress code; and an FAQ in relation to general pay increases for employees who are on maternity leave.
Can you think of a store, restaurant, or bar that appears to require women to wear low-cut tops, short skirts, tight dresses, or high heels when they go to work? Well, it might be wise for those employers to take another look at their dress code policy in light of the Ontario Human Rights Commission position on gender-specific dress code announced on International Women’s Day 2016 and the passing into law of occupational health and safety provisions protecting against workplace sexual harassment and violence. Under Bill 132, the OHSA’s definition of “workplace harassment” will be expanded to include “workplace sexual harassment.”
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.