2 total
Employer ordered to pay damages and restitution for terminating employee in reprisal for human rights complaint.
The complainant alleged that her employer terminated her in reprisal for a previous human rights complaint and discriminated against her based on sex (pregnancy).
The Tribunal found that a release signed in a prior settlement precluded consideration of alleged reprisals occurring before the settlement.
However, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant's termination, which occurred three weeks after the settlement, was a deliberate act of reprisal for her earlier complaint.
The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to establish sex discrimination.
The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in general damages and $42,466.79 in restitution for lost wages, and to implement human rights policies and training.
Personal respondent removed from human rights complaint after corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability.
The personal respondent, Fion Tran, sought to be removed as a party to the human rights complaint.
The Commission consented, noting that the corporate respondent, Tai Pan Vacation, acknowledged vicarious liability for her actions.
The complainant opposed the removal.
Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent.
The Tribunal ordered that Fion Tran be removed as a party.
