HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Andrew Scaduto Applicant
-and-
Insurance Search Bureau Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Scaduto v. Insurance Search Bureau
APPEARANCES
Andrew Scaduto, Applicant
Erin Hallock, Counsel
Insurance Search Bureau, Respondent
Leah Simon, Counsel
Introduction
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 in employment because of sexual orientation. The applicant alleges that his job performance was subject to greater scrutiny during his employment because of his sexual orientation. He alleges further that the respondent failed to investigate his human rights complaint and that his sexual orientation was a factor in the respondent’s decision to terminate his employment.
background
2The respondent Insurance Search Bureau (“ISB”) is a document retrieval company that provides a variety of searches to its clients in the following areas: driver; vehicle; property; corporate background; accident benefits and employment screening. The Chief Executive Office of the company is Gino Fiorucci (“Fiorucci”).
3ISB has two divisions: the insurance division and the employment background screening division. In the insurance division, the work is divided into three queues. The first queue involves monitoring and responding to incoming e-mails. The second queue involves on-line searches such as driver abstracts, license plate searches, insurance searches and license plate histories. The third queue involves court searches such as statements of claim, land title searches, consumer reports, name searches and property assessments. In addition to the three queues, the insurance division also provides police searches. ISB conducts 400 searches a day.
4On March 17, 2011, the applicant commenced employment with ISB as an Information Specialist. His employment was subject to a three-month probationary period. The applicant was hired by the office manager Tracey Norman (“Norman”).
5The applicant commenced employment in queue 2 and was supervised by Adina Boros (“Boros”). He remained in queue 2 for two to three weeks and then moved to police searches under the supervision of Cheryl Young (“Young”). The applicant moved to queue 3 on June 15, 2011, under the supervision of Courtney Linton (“Linton”). He remained there until his employment was terminated on July 5, 2011.
6The following information is taken from the written communications filed by ISB. These records have been given significant weight by me because they were made at the time of the applicant’s employment in 2011. In addition to the documentary evidence, I heard testimony from the applicant and Johanna Clifford, another employee of ISB, for the applicant. I also heard testimony from Norman, Young, Boros, Linton and Fiorucci, for the respondent.
Queue 2
7The applicant worked in queue 2 from the middle of March until the first week in April 2011. During this time, he received two e-mails regarding his work. He was advised by Boros to print his e-mails in Paperport, the company’s electronic filing system. The applicant received another e-mail, it appears from a client, inquiring about whether an invoice number was correct for a particular order.
Police Searches
8The applicant moved to police searches after his second or third week in employment. During the first two weeks, the applicant received feedback from Young about how to do his job. Young reminded the applicant to: mark e-mails as read in queue 1; not miss or skip searches; not mark orders as awaiting verification or product; print consent forms; and read Excel notes.
9On April 27, 2011, Young advised Norman that she was going to have a meeting with the applicant because she was having difficulty getting him to correct his mistakes. Young told Norman that the applicant would not admit that he made a mistake and that he blamed Young. Young told Norman that the applicant reminded her of B, a former employee with whom Young had great difficulty working with.
10Young met with the applicant on April 27, 2011, and reported the following to Norman:
I didn’t realize there were so many reviews this morning. I didn’t hear anyone mention so I didn’t think you would be in the office. Andrew came up to me after his break so we went then. We talked and I advised him that it is all about learning and everyone will have questions and mistakes made. He felt like I may have been getting tired of handing him mistakes so he wasn’t any questions or anything. He did say he will try so lets see how it goes. I told him he has to understand that when I hand him mistakes, it is so he will