Audrey Dante v. U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd., 2009 HRTO 2080

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Audrey Dante

Applicant

-and-

U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd., Muraudhar Madireddy, Shirisha Madireddy and Antony Grocott

Respondents

Case Resolution Conference DECISION

Adjudicator: Sunil Kapur Date: December 2, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2080 Indexed as: Dante v. U-Haul Co. (Canada)

APPEARANCES BY

Audrey Dante, Applicant ) On her own behalf

U-Hall Co. (Canada) Ltd., Muraudhar Madireddy, ) Antony Grocott, on his Shirisha Madireddy and Antony Grocott, ) own behalf and as Respondents ) representative of the ) other respondents

Introduction

1This Case Resolution Conference Decision (the “CRC decision”) involves an Application dated December 16, 2009 made under s. 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”) by Audrey Dante (the “applicant”). The respondents to the Application are U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd. (“U-Haul”), Muraudhar Madireddy (“Mr. Madireddy”), Shirisha Madireddy (“Ms. Madireddy”) and Antony Grocott (“Mr. Grocott”).

2The applicant alleges that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment in employment because of her sex, ethnic origin and place of origin. The applicant self-identifies as a Catholic Canadian woman.

Evidence

3The applicant was employed by U-Haul as a part-time custodian. The applicant commenced employment with U-Haul on May 15, 2006 and her employment was terminated on August 23, 2007. The applicant’s primary job function was to perform cleaning and minor maintenance service duties at U-Haul’s storage facility.

4Mr. Madireddy was appointed as the storage centre manager at the U-Haul storage facility on January 29, 2007. At the same time, Ms. Madireddy was appointed as the assistant storage manager at the facility. Both Mr. and Ms. Madireddy self-identify as Hindus of South Asian descent.

5The applicant stated in her evidence that when Mr. and Ms. Madireddy first started at the storage facility her relationship with them was good. According to the applicant the situation changed and she testified she was subjected to discriminatory comments and treatment by both Mr. and Ms. Madireddy. The applicant’s evidence supporting her claim can be distilled into the following events:

(i) On June 15, 2007 the applicant alleges that she was asked by Ms. Madireddy to fold approximately 100 blankets. The applicant testified that she advised Ms. Madireddy that folding blankets was not in her job description and that she would not perform the task. According to the applicant Ms. Madireddy stated to the applicant and another co-worker, Christina Pfeiffer (“Ms. Pfeiffer”), that “all Canadian women are nothing but lazy”.

(ii) On July 7, 2007 the applicant states that she was organizing one of the units at the facility. According to the applicant Mr. Madireddy approached to see what she was working on when he saw a Christmas tree on the ground. The applicant states that Mr. Madireddy kicked the Christmas tree and told her to put it in the garbage. The applicant states that she advised Mr. Madireddy that the Christmas tree was for the office and that the employees celebrated Christmas together. Mr. Madireddy is then alleged to have kicked the Christmas tree again and yelled that it should be put in the garbage and that there would be no Christmas. The applicant stated that the conversation became too heated at this point and that she walked away.

(iii) On August 9, 2007 the applicant alleges that Mr. Madireddy asked her to move furniture from a location. The applicant alleged that some of the furniture weighed hundreds of pounds. The applicant refused to move the furniture. At this point the applicant alleges that Mr. Madireddy stated that “you are a woman and will do as you are told”. The applicant stated that she shook her head and walked away in order to avoid an altercation.

(iv) The applicant alleges that on a number of occasions she was asked by Mr. and Ms. Madireddy to perform work that was outside of her job description and that was demeaning. Examples of this included, being asked to build a shelf for “their god Ganesha”, being asked to clean the office toilet; removing a significant amount of peg board at her own cost and cleaning car mats for Mr. Madireddy’s friends.

6The incident which culminated in the applicant’s dismissal began on August 22, 2007. The applicant alleges that her daughter had called the facility seeking to speak to her. The applicant alleges that Ms. Madireddy knew that it was her daughter calling and also knew that the applicant was at work that day. The applicant stated that she was never advised of the call. Later that day the applicant alleges that she spoke to her daughter and discovered that she had called the facility and was ill and needed her assistance. The applicant became outraged at the fact that Ms. Madireddy had not advised her of the call. The next day the applicant states that she went to the office at the facility and confronted Mr. and Ms. Madireddy in front of others about her daughter’s phone call the day earlier. The applicant agreed that she was yelling at them and using very profane language. After this incident, the applicant’s employment with U-Haul was terminated.

7The applicant stated that for a number of the interactions there were corroborating witnesses, such as Ms. Pfeiffer. However, the applicant did not call any such evidence.

8All three of the individual respondents testified. The evidence of the individual respondents was diametrically opposite to that of the applicant’s.

9Ms. Madireddy testified that she never stated “all Canadian women are nothing but lazy”. She also denied asking the applicant to build her a shelf. Ms. Madireddy testified that the applicant was very argumentative about her work duties. She testified that when the applicant’s daughter called on August 22, 2007 she did not indicate that it was an emergency. Ms. Madireddy advised her daughter that if she saw her mother she would tell her that she called. Ms. Madireddy never saw the applicant for the remainder of the day.

10Mr. Madireddy testified that he never stated “you are a woman and will do as you are told”. Mr. Madireddy also denied that he kicked the Christmas tree and stated that there would be no Christmas. Mr. Madireddy also stated that the applicant was very argumentative at work. Mr. Madireddy testified that the applicant’s employment was terminated after the incident on August 23, 2007.

11Mr. Grocott is employed by the corporate head office of U-Haul and is Mr. and Ms. Madireddy’s superior. Mr. Grocott testified that the applicant during her employment never raised any of the allegations that she is now making. Mr. Grocott stated that the applicant had met with him and Mr. Claude Boucher to discuss work matters. Mr. Grocott stated that in that meeting the applicant complained about her wages, her hours of work and about doing “walk-arounds” at the facility. Mr. Grocott confirmed that the applicant’s employment was terminated because of the incident on August 23, 2007.

Decision

12Having weighed all of the evidence admitted in this matter, I find that the applicant’s evidence on the material issues in dispute was not credible. My finding is based on the following:

(i) In her evidence the applicant relied upon a number of handwritten notes that she dated. The applicant stated in her evidence that the notes were made immediately after the incidents occurred and were made on the date indicated in her handwriting. One of the notes made by the applicant describes the incident in which Ms. Madireddy stated to her that all Canadian women are lazy. The applicant stated in her chief that this note was made immediately after the incident occurred and on the date indicated in her handwriting (June 15). Upon cross-examination the Applicant admitted that this note was not actually made immediately after the incident occurred and was also not made on June 15. Accordingly, the applicant’s evidence on this allegation is less credible.

(ii) The applicant alleged that Mr. Madireddy was attempting to sabotage her employment by signing her name to tags on storage units. The applicant alleges that Mr. Madireddy was signing these tags indicating that the storage units were clean when in fact they were not. The tags introduced into evidence actually did not have the applicant’s name on them but rather Mr. Madireddy’s. Accordingly, if Mr. Madireddy was sabotaging the applicant’s employment why would he sign his own name to storage units that had not been cleaned? I do not believe the applicant’s allegation that Mr. Madireddy was attempting to sabotage her employment.

(iii) The applicant stated on August 9, 2007 Mr. Madireddy had instructed her to lift materials that weighed hundreds of pounds each without any assistance. It was this interaction that the applicant alleges led Mr. Madireddy to say that you are a woman and will do as you are told. Mr. Madireddy denied that he had asked the applicant to lift hundreds of pounds without any assistance. It does not make any sense for Mr. Madireddy (or anyone else) to believe that the applicant is capable of lifting hundreds of pounds of weight without any assistance. I find that it is unlikely that Mr. Madireddy made such a request. Accordingly, I find the applicant’s evidence concerning this allegation to be less credible.

(iv) The applicant had no explanation for why her allegations of harassment and discrimination were not raised prior to her termination of employment. The evidence from all parties clearly established that the applicant did not have any hesitation in confronting others in the workplace when she felt that she was not being treated appropriately. The applicant complained to Mr. and Ms. Madireddy’s superiors about assignment of tasks and her wages and hours of works. The incident of August 23, 2007 that resulted in her termination demonstrates that the applicant had no fear in confronting Mr. and Ms. Madireddy. This confrontation took place in front of others at the office.

13I find the evidence of Mr. Grocott, Mr. Madireddy and Ms. Madireddy to be credible. Their evidence was consistent, their recollections were clear and their description of the events that occurred was more believable than the applicant’s. Accordingly, I prefer their evidence over the Applicant’s. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the applicant was not harassed or discriminated against by the respondents and that the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment was not made contrary to the Code.

14The Application is dismissed.