HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Amanda Henry
Applicant
-and-
Consumer Contact ULC
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Decision Date: June 4, 2013
Indexed as: Henry v. Consumer Contact ULC
APPEARANCES
Amanda Henry, Applicant
Self-represented
Consumer Contact ULC, Respondent
David Chalmers, Representative
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed. The applicant is a Seventh-day Adventist. The respondent is a company that operates a call centre.
2The applicant gave oral evidence and made closing submissions. She filed an excerpt from the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, describing the essentials of her creed, and a letter from the YMCA regarding her participation in a training program. David Chalmers was the respondent’s only witness as well as acting as its representative in completing the Response and at the hearing. He filed several documents including a survey of the respondent’s employees and made closing submissions.
3For the reasons set out below, I find that the respondent breached the Code in its treatment of the applicant.
the applicant’s evidence
4The applicant testified that, in September 2010, she was interviewed by Jessica Samaroo, a supervisor at the respondent. During the interview, the applicant told Ms Samaroo that she would not be able to work from Friday evening to Saturday because that time was her Sabbath. Ms Samaroo said “okay” and proceeded with the interview.
5At the end of the interview, Ms Samaroo told the applicant that she had been hired and that training would take place on a weekend (September 25 and 26) later that month. The applicant reminded Ms Samaroo that she could not attend training on Saturday due to religious observance. Ms Samaroo asked the applicant if “for this once” she could do training on Saturday. The applicant explained that her religious beliefs required that she do no secular work whatsoever from Friday to Saturday.
6Ms Samaroo told the applicant that she would speak with “Tasha” (identified in the Response as Itasha Parmer) and that the applicant would receive a call the following day or should call the respondent.
7The applicant called the following day and spoke with Ms Parmer, who told her that someone would be in contact with her about training dates during the week.
8After two weeks, during which the applicant was not contacted by any representative of the respondent, she called the respondent and asked to speak to the person in charge of training. She was told that that person was Eleni Themelis and that Ms Themelis would be available later that day.
9When the applicant called later that day, Ms Themelis answered the phone and immediately asked if she was Amanda Henry. Ms Themelis then told the applicant that there would be no more training for the rest of the year and that the upcoming weekend training was the only opportunity to be trained.
10The applicant once again explained that observance of the Friday to Saturday Sabbath was a requirement of her religion. She asked Ms Themelis whether she could attend the Sunday training, which focused on software and computer usage, and then be trained on Saturday’s material, which focused on company policy, at a later date. Ms The