Janet E. Minor

The complainants, two waitresses at a fast-food establishment, alleged that their employer subjected them to sexual harassment and subsequently dismissed them for rejecting his sexual advances.

The respondent employer did not appear at the hearing.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent's unwelcome physical contact constituted a sexually discriminatory condition of employment contrary to section 4(1)(g) of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the complainants' dismissal was a result of their refusal to submit to the harassment, violating section 4(1)(b) of the Code.

The Board ordered the respondent to pay compensation for lost wages and for the embarrassment and humiliation suffered by the complainants.

The complainant alleged that she was denied a promotion to a managerial position because of her sex.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant had reason to suspect discrimination given the lack of women in management, the employer had expanded the role's duties and the successful male candidate was chosen because he possessed better qualifications and supervisory experience.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants, two women, applied for server positions at a restaurant in response to an advertisement.

They were refused employment because the restaurant owner preferred male waiters for evening dinner service, which he considered part of the 'European tradition'.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent discriminated against the complainants on the basis of sex, contravening the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease its discriminatory practices and awarded $75 in general damages to each complainant.

However, the Board declined to award compensation for lost wages because the complainants lacked the essential prerequisite of experience with French cuisine and would not have been hired regardless of their sex.

The complainant, a black woman of Jamaican origin, was dismissed from her employment after an altercation where she slapped her supervisor.

She alleged her dismissal was discriminatory based on race, colour, and place of origin.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant's conduct and other non-discriminatory factors played a role, the supervisor's decision to abruptly dismiss her was also influenced by a lack of regard for her as a person, which was partly based on her race, colour, and place of origin.

The complaint was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay compensation for lost wages and injured feelings.

The complainant, a black woman from Jamaica, was dismissed from her job as a keypunch operator after 21 months.

She alleged that her dismissal was based on her race and colour, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the employer's manner of dismissal was unfair and lacked proper warning about her performance shortcomings, there was no evidence of racial discrimination.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a male, responded to a newspaper advertisement for a dining room server at the respondent's tavern.

He was told by an employee that only waitresses were wanted for the dining room, despite the advertisement mentioning both waiters and waitresses.

The owner preferred to employ only waiters in the beverage lounge and only waitresses in the dining room.

The Board of Inquiry found that the owner's personal preference did not constitute a bona fide occupational qualification and that the respondent refused to employ the complainant because of his sex.

The respondent was ordered to pay $100 in compensation for loss of employment income.

The complainant, a black African woman, was dismissed from her employment as a cashier after a cash shortage and the subsequent discovery of money under her cash register.

She alleged that her dismissal was based on her race, colour, and place of origin, claiming her manager made a racist remark during her termination.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer dismissed her due to suspicions of theft and an inability to explain the cash discrepancy, not because of her race or colour.

The complaint of discrimination was dismissed.

Two complainants alleged age discrimination in their employment as waitresses at a restaurant.

The first complainant failed to attend the hearing or respond to notices, and her request for an adjournment was denied, resulting in the dismissal of her complaint.

The second complainant alleged she was dismissed because of her age.

The Board found that she was not dismissed but offered alternative employment, and that the employer's actions were motivated by interpersonal conflicts between employees, not age.

Both complaints were dismissed.