HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Anne-Marie Backstrom
Applicant
-and-
GE Canada-Global Growth and Operations, GE Capital Canada and GE Capital Solutions
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Backstrom v. GE Canada-Global Growth and Operations
APPEARANCES
Anne-Marie Backstrom, Applicant
Self-represented
GE Canada-Global Growth and Operations, GE Capital Canada and GE Capital Solutions, Respondent
Andrew Zabrowsky, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, gender identity, family status, marital status and age.
Background
2In the Application, the applicant states that over the last several years she has applied for about 30 jobs with the respondents for which she feels she is well-qualified, but was unsuccessful. The applicant states that in August 2014 she asked the respondents to take a closer look at her job applications and she received three interviews over an eight-month period, but was not selected for employment. The applicant states in the Application that she does not know why she was passed over, but speculates that it may be because of her age, gender, marital status and family status.
Summary Hearing
3By Case Assessment Direction dated July 31, 2014, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing in this matter to determine whether it should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal held the summary hearing by teleconference on November 3, 2014.
Submissions
4The applicant made several submissions in support of her position that the Application should be allowed to continue. The applicant submitted that the respondents did not meet their duty to accommodate her by giving her an opportunity to be hired. The applicant submitted that the respondents would not experience undue hardship by hiring her, since she was well-qualified for the positions for which she applied and that the cost of training her would be the same as for any other candidate.
5The applicant submitted that the interviews she did receive did not seem sincere and were only granted because she “spoke up” and asked why she had not been interviewed. With respect to age, the applicant submitted that she applied for a lending position held by a man named Scott who is 10 years younger than her and has only two years’ lending experience, while the applicant had 10 years of lending experience. The applicant stated that the job posting to which she responded stated that three years of experience was required for the position. The applicant stated that she gleaned the information about Scott’s qualifications from his LinkedIn page and pointed to it as evidence of age and gender bias. However, the respondents pointed out that the applicant and Scott had not been competitors for the same lending position. Rather, Scott had been hired into his position several years before the applicant applied for a different vacancy for the same job. The applicant acknowledged this to be the case.
6The applicant submitted that during one of the job interviews the respondents granted her the interviewer stated that the applicant would not be given lending limits if she was hired. The applicant stated that it was highly unusual to hire a lender without giving him or her authority to advance credit. The applicant submitted that the respondents “undermined” her in making this statement. The applicant also submitted that the respondents favoured candidates with university degrees and submitted that an audit would show that 90% of the people the respondents have degrees. The applicant submitted that this practice discounted her life experience. The applicant submitted that she had been unable to complete her university studies because her funding was cut. The applicant submitted that she does not have the support of a spouse, as she is single, and her parents are not in a position to assist her. The applicant submitted that she is competing with younger candidates with degrees who do have the support of family and/or spouses.
7The applicant also submitted that she does have some “job gaps”, i.e., periods when she was not working, in her work experience and this was a concern for the respondents. The applicant submitted that these gaps are explained by a wrongful dismissal