Jamie Lynn McGinnis

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against her former employer.

She argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding corporate liability for an employee's harassment, specifically whether the employee was a 'directing mind' or had a 'significant connection' to the employer.

The Tribunal found that the employee in question did not have supervisory authority or the power to hire, fire, or discipline, and therefore was not part of the directing mind.

The Tribunal also found that the 'significant connection' test did not apply to the facts.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment at a coffee shop because of her pregnancy, relying on text messages from a co-worker stating the owner felt she could not do the job as she got bigger.

The Tribunal found that the co-owner who made the termination decision was unaware of the applicant's pregnancy and dismissed her for performance reasons.

The Tribunal further held that even if the co-worker's false text messages constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code, the employer could not be held vicariously liable for an employee's harassment under section 46.3(1).

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

In an interim request, the applicant sought to withdraw her claims of systemic discrimination to protect the privacy of her colleagues and requested the removal of the individual respondents on consent.

The Tribunal treated the submissions as a request to withdraw, which was unopposed, and granted the request to remove the individual respondents.