Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Chigoziri Ogbonna-Ehirim
Applicant
-and-
Holiday Inn & Suites Mississauga
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Ogbonna-Ehirim v. Holiday Inn & Suites Mississauga
1This Application was filed on June 13, 2011 under, the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, marital status and reprisal. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for an Order During Proceeding filed by the applicant seeking the re-activation of the Application following an Order deferring it made by the Tribunal in 2011 HRTO 1750. The respondent although given an opportunity to respond to the applicant’s Request has not done so.
BACKGROUND
2The applicant was employed in the respondent’s hotel. The Application alleges that the applicant was obliged to stand while working at the hotel’s front desk even thought she explained to management that she had a bad back and offered to bring in a medical note to support her claim that she had a bad back. The Application alleges the requirement that she stand at the front desk constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability.
3The Application also alleges that she was denied health benefits on the basis that she had access to her husband’s health benefits while health benefits were provided to every other full time hotel staff member regardless of their marital status. The Application alleges that this constitutes discrimination on the basis of marital status.
4The Application also alleges that the applicant repeatedly asked for her health benefits and outstanding overtime pay and was threatened by a manager when she stated that she would be filing a claim under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”). Several days later the applicant’s employment was terminated and she was accused of fraudulent behaviour. The Application states that these actions by the respondent constitute discrimination based on reprisal.
5The applicant did file a claim under the ESA and the Tribunal granted the respondent’s requests that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application on the basis that there was a proceeding underway with the Ministry of Labour that addressed some of the issues raised in the Application. The applicant did not oppose the respondent’s Request. The ESA proceeding has concluded with the Employment Standards Officer finding in favour of the applicant’s claims to unpaid overtime, termination pay and reprisal.
6The applicant has requested that the Application be re-activated. The applicant made no submissions about what aspects of the Application she believed should proceed further.
7In deferring the Application pending the resolution of the ESA proceeding the Tribunal noted there appearred that there was limited overlap in the issues that the applicant raised in her claim under the ESA and in this Application. In particular the Tribunal noted that the proceeding under the ESA would not likely deal with the allegations of discrimination based on disability or marital status or the underlying facts related to these two allegations. The Tribunal also observed that, in dealing with the issue of reprisal, the ESA proceeding may well substantively deal with the issue of reprisal as raised in the Application given that the applicant alleges that the applicant was subject to reprisal after indicating that she intended to file a claim under the ESA.
8This Application should proceed to a hearing. Having reviewed the Application, the Response, as well as the decision of the Employment Standards Officer, I am satisfied that the ESA proceeding did not address the applicant’s allegations of disability and marital status discrimination raised in the Application and those issues remain outstanding.
9The Registrar will contact the parties to schedule a one day hearing for this case.
10I am not seized of this matter
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of December, 2011
”signed by”__________ David Muir
Vice-chair