Human Resources 101

The following decision comes from an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation into a workplace sexual harassment complaint.

Diane Carr v. Humpty’s Family Restaurant and Humpty’s Restaurants International Inc. (July 21, 2006; Delano W. Tolley, Panel Chair)

Discrimination – Grounds – Gender – Sexual Harassment – Area – Employment – Kitchen worker alleged sexual harassment at the workplace arising from a colleague’s persistent sexual comments and gestures directed at the complainant – Restaurant manager did nothing when advised of the colleague’s behaviour – When complainant and co-worker threatened to quit if situation was not corrected by management, their employment was terminated – Perpetrator testified he was unaware his comments were offensive to the complainant and his gestures were made in fun – Sexual harassment included inappropriate comments – Express objection need not be shown to establish that the behaviour is unwelcome where a reasonable person knew or ought to have known that it is unwelcome. Complainant awarded $4,000 in damages for pain and suffering, lost wages and reimbursement for costs incurred in bringing the complaint – Complaint allowed.

The complainant kitchen worker alleged sexual harassment in the workplace because of a colleague’s sexual comments and gestures directed to the complainant. The restaurant manager was advised of the behaviour but did nothing. After numerous incidents, the complainant and a co-worker gave the manager an ultimatum that they would quit employment if the situation was not corrected. As a result, both the complainant and co-worker’s employment was terminated. The perpetrator of the comments and objectionable conduct stated he never heard any complaint from co-workers regarding his conduct and that some incidents were made in fun.

HELD: Complaint allowed. Sexual harassment included inappropriate comments. Actions made “in fun” are not relevant to determining whether a violation of the law occurred. Express objection need not be shown to establish that the behaviour is unwelcome where a reasonable person knew or ought to have known that it is unwelcome. The complainant was awarded $4,000 in damages for pain and suffering, lost wages and reimbursement to the complainant for costs incurred in bringing the complaint.

Cases Considered: Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., (1989) 10 C.H.R.R. D/6205; McNulty v. G.N.F. Holdings Ltd. 16 C.H.R.R. D/418.

Statutes and Regulations Considered: Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14, s. 7(1).

Read the complete decision: PDF