Palmer v. Bridgepoint Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1134

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brenda Palmer

Applicant

-and-

Bridgepoint Hospital and Randy Ausenhus

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1134

Indexed as: Palmer v. Bridgepoint Hospital

APPEARANCES

Brenda Palmer, Applicant ) On her own behalf

Bridgepoint Hospital and Randy ) Elizabeth Kosmidis, Counsel Ausenhus, Respondents )

1This is an Application filed June 24, 2009 under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O, c. H. 19 as amended (the “Code”). The underlying complaint (the “Complaint”) was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on November 9, 2007. The Application alleges that the applicant was subjected to discrimination in relation to employment on the basis of sex.

BACKGROUND

2The respondent Bridgepoint Hospital (“Bridgepoint”) is a University of Toronto community affiliated teaching hospital responsible for the treatment of chronic disease and disability.

3The applicant was hired by Bridgepoint as a Quality and Risk Applications Specialist and commenced her employment in February 2007. She was required to serve a six month probationary period from the date of hire. The applicant was part of a team of Application Specialists. She was the least senior member of the team which was composed of two men and two women including the applicant. Members of the team reported to the Director, Information Management, however, in March 2007 the personal respondent, Mr. Ausenhus, assumed responsibility for the team including the applicant.

4Mr. Ausenhus was ultimately accountable for the delivery of a revised Risk Reporting and Risk Feedback System. In his testimony, Mr. Ausenhus explained that this system dealt with patient security and safety and was of significant importance to Bridgepoint. His expectations were that the applicant would assume responsibility for the overhaul and updating of the hospital risk reporting system and, once completed, support the application and assume other responsibilities as required by the hospital’s business needs.

5According to Mr. Ausenhus during the first several weeks of managing the applicant he noticed deficiencies in the quality and quantity of the applicant’s work. He testified that he had asked the applicant to develop a Quality Safety Risk Strategy Plan, (“business plan”), that incorporated her goals, objectives and timelines together with a plan for integrating quality safety and risk considerations throughout the hospital. It is not clear whether this business plan was ever completed by the applicant, however, according to Mr. Ausenhus the first draft was extremely poor. Mr. Ausenhus testified that ultimately he came to the view that the applicant did not have the skills necessary to lead the project and deliver it on a timely basis. After discussing the issue with his superiors the decision was made to terminate the applicant’s employment and replace her with someone who could complete the project. This decision was carried out in May 2007. According to Mr. Ausenhus another Application Specialist was seconded to the position and she delivered on the key milestones of the project within weeks.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

6The applicant’s position is that she was the subject of sexual harassment and discrimination because she was required to complete and deliver a “business plan” whereas her male colleagues were not so required.

7No evidence was adduced by the applicant to establish that the applicant’s male colleagues were not required to complete a business plan. The uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Ausenhus was that the development of a business plan was not something he assigned to the applicant alone. He testified that every Application Specialist, male and female, was required to produce a business plan incorporating their goals for the upcoming year and identifying how their applications were relevant to the hospital.

8Monica Jacobs, Director, Quality and Risk Management for Bridgepoint testified that all employees who report to her are expected to prepare a business plan, that she prepares one every year, and that it is a common requirement of employees at Bridgepoint.

9I am satisfied that the applicant’s gender was not a factor in Mr. Ausenhus’ request for a business plan.

10There was a great deal of debate as to whether the development of a business plan by the applicant was within or outside of her job description or beyond the scope of her roles and duties. I should note that the applicant’s contract of employment with Bridgepoint states that “Bridgepoint has the right from time to time, to set or alter the duties and responsibilities of the position, as deemed necessary, to meet operations requirements.” That notwithstanding, even if I were to find that the formulation of a business plan was outside the applicant’s job description, the applicant has failed to discharge the onus which lies upon her to establish that her gender was a factor in the decision to change or add an additional duty to her job.

11Whether within or outside the applicant’s job description, I am satisfied that it was a common business practice at Bridgepoint that employees develop business plans and that it was in keeping with this practice that the applicant was requested to devise her own business plan and not for reasons relating to her gender.

12For all of these reasons the Application is dismissed.