Chambers v. Whole Foods Market, 2014 HRTO 1137

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Althea Chambers

Applicant

-and-

Whole Foods Market

Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 30, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1137

Indexed as: Chambers v. Whole Foods Market

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Althea Chambers, Applicant

Self-represented

Whole Foods Market, Respondent

Lia Chirrotto, Counsel

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 and goods and services on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, gender identity and family status, marital status, record of offences, association and reprisal.

2A summary hearing was held on July 25, 2014 be teleconference. All parties attended. After the respondent concluded its submissions the applicant introduced an individual who she wished to speak on her behalf. Variously described as her son andthen a friend, this individual was permitted to make oral submissions in reply.

3In the narrative of the Application the applicant alleges that her termination from employment was discriminatory, although no facts are plead there that would support that conclusion. She also alleges that she was passed over for a promotion in the Fall of 2013. The applicant self identifies as a black single mother.

4At the hearing the applicant made a number of allegations that are not included in the Application. The applicant alleges for example that when she complained about some of her work assignments her supervisor told her that “your kind are good at that kind of work”. The applicant also alleged that she was told by one managerial employee that their superior would never promote a woman in the department. The applicant also alleged that she complained to human resources and managerial employees on several occasions but nothing was done about these issues. Ultimately the applicant alleges that she was terminated because they did not like these complaints.

5The respondent noted as did I that much of this was new and not in the Application. The respondent argued that the issue before me should be determined on the basis of the Application and that it was entitled to know the case it had to meet. The respondent also conceded that the Tribunal has allowed an applicant to amend the Application at the summary hearing stage.

6In my view it would be most fair just and expeditious to allow the applicant to amend the Application at this early stage of the proceeding. One of the purposes of the summary hearing process is to provide an opportunity to applicants to articulate their case more completely. It is also clear that the respondent is entitled to know the case it is required to respond to. However I note that the applicant is self- represented at this stage and the Application was apparently self-drafted. I note that the applicant did allege reprisal although there are no particulars provided to support this allegation other than the bare fact of her dismissal from employment which in the Application is not linked to anything. I also note that although very generally stated the application does contain a vague allegation of gender discrimination.

7This is not a final determination of whether or not this Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success or for any other reason. However based on the applicant’s submission it is not possible to state at this stage that the Application in its entirely, subject to the applicant providing particulars in an amended Application, can be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. I also observe that to the extent that the respondent was able to respond to the new allegations (or particulars of very general allegations) that these were denied. However I also note that to a significant degree the factual disputes raised by the respondent’s responses will likely require a hearing with evidence being called to resolve.

8I do find that the Application as it relates to a claim of discrimination in the provision of goods and services is dismissed because there is no evidence to which the applicant can point of a service relationship between herself and the respondent – she was its employee. Similarly there is no evidence with respect to the claim of discrimination on the basis of record of offences and accordingly that allegation is dismissed.

9The Tribunal makes the following Orders and Directions:

a. The Application as it relates to a claim of discrimination in the provision of goods and services is dismissed.

b. The Application as it relates to a claim of discrimination on the basis of record of offences is dismissed.

c. The applicant will deliver and file an amended Application within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision setting out in detail her allegations of gender and race discrimination beginning in March 2013 culminating in her termination in reprisal for her allegedly complaining about this discrimination. In this regard the applicant must provide details of the nature of the alleged acts of discrimination and when they occurred. She must also provide details about when she complained, to whom she complained and what precisely she complained of.

d. The respondent will file a Response (Form 2) within 35 days of its receipt of the applicant’s amended Application.

e. The applicant will deliver and file her Reply (Form 3), if any, within 14 days of receiving the Response

10I am not seized.