Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Heather Hobbs Applicant
-and-
Hamel, The Cleaning House Ltd. Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Decision Date: May 30, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1068 Indexed as: Hobbs v. Hamel, The Cleaning House Ltd.
Appearances
Heather Hobbs, Applicant Self-represented
Hamel, The Cleaning House Ltd., Respondent Shannon Morgan, Representative
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 23, 2010, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status.
2More particularly, the applicant alleges that, on May 4, 2010, she was hired by the respondent to cover a maternity leave in a “purchasing” position. During her interview for the position, she was asked how many children she had and how old they were. On June 23, 2010 she had a pregnancy-related medical issue, and had to tell her employer so she could leave work to attend the hospital. On July 5, 2010, her employment was terminated. She was told “it’s not working”, and that she had lost money in late invoices.
3In its Response to the Application, the respondent asserts that the applicant made numerous errors, and that customers started to call in June 2010, complaining of back orders, and about the applicant’s combative attitude. The respondent also asserts that the applicant’s lack of discipline resulted in a loss of discounts offered by its suppliers, as a large pile of invoices was found on top of her cabinet a month after the due dates. Lastly, the respondent submits that the applicant was spoken to on June 29, 2010 after she had an altercation with the respondent’s Shipping Manager.
Evidence
4The applicant gave evidence at the hearing. Three witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the respondent: Jen Stewart, Purchaser, Shannon Morgan, Office Manager, and Heather Spera, Accounts Receivable and Shipping Manager. The parties also submitted documentary evidence.
The Applicant’s Evidence
5The applicant testified that she was interviewed by Ms. Morgan, and that Ms. Morgan asked her about her marital status and how many children she had. She began her employment with the respondent a week later.
6The applicant explained that she was hired to cover Ms. Stewart’s maternity leave. She testified that she spoke to many employees because she was not catching on as quick as she thought she should. Naming several individuals, she testified that they all told her that it took Ms. Stewart 5 to 7 years to learn the job fully. She admitted that she messed up a few orders, and testified that she had never done purchasing before and it was all new to her. She testified that Ms. Morgan noticed she was behind and helped her.
7The applicant explained that she wrote notes during training and then just did the job. She referred to having to remember thousands of products. She disagreed with the statement in Ms. Spera’s witness summary that she “depended” on other employees to tell her how much to order. She testified that, rather, she asked for help.
8The applicant also addressed Ms. Spera’s description in her witness statement of an incident on June 29, 2010, involving “Wasp & Hornet Killer” being on back order. The applicant testified that she had to order the product from a separate company because the company was backordered. The applicant agreed with Ms. Spera’s statement that a customer came in to pick up the product, but the product was not in stock. The applicant denied Ms. Spera’s statement that she “went ballistic” when Ms. Spera questioned her about it. She testified that she offered to deliver the product because it was her mistake when she told the customer to come in and pick it up.
9The applicant testified that she found out she was pregnant a couple of weeks into June 2010, and kept it to herself. While at work on June 23, 2010, she had a pregnancy-related medical issue. She told Ms. Morgan about it, and that she was pregnant, and needed to go to the hospital. She went to the hospital and everything was fine.
10The applicant testified that, on July 5, 2010, Ms. Morgan handed her an envelope, and told her that they were letting her go and that “it’s not working.”
The Respondent’s Witnesses
11Ms. Stewart testified that during the first two weeks of the applicant’s employment, the applicant was watching her and taking lots of notes. During the third week, the applicant was pretty much