Rights commission disappointed in decision after pregnant woman fired
Senior executive wanted to work reduced hours, lost job
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Monthly Digital Subscription
$19 $0 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*No charge for 4 weeks then billed as $19 every four weeks (new subscribers and qualified returning subscribers only). Cancel anytime.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/05/2015 (3253 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
The Manitoba Human Rights Commission is expressing “disappointment” over a decision by an independent adjudicator who ruled that a Manitoba woman’s pregnancy was not a factor in her firing.
The Commission had previously argued that Audrey Blatz, who held a senior executive position with 4L Communications Inc., was fired just months after notifying her employers that she was pregnant and would have to limit her work hours.
However, adjudicator Robert Dawson ruled the company had not contravened the Human Rights Code.
“Accordingly, I accept that the respondent had concerns about the performance of the complainant, and these concerns alone were the basis for its decision to terminate the complainant’s employment,” Dawson wrote. “I find no evidence that suggests the pregnancy of the complaint played any part in the decision to terminate Ms Blatz’s employment.”
The chair of the board of commissioners, Yvonne Peters, called the ruling a disappointment.
“This decision raises some concern,” Peters said. “We know that discrimination today is not overt and can be very subtle, regardless of whether it is based on pregnancy, ancestry or any of the other grounds The Code protects. In reviewing complaints of discrimination, it is important to examine the evidence as a whole and not rely on only direct evidence of discriminatory behaviour.
“As case law supports, discrimination may be inferred based on the conduct of individuals, especially in cases where an employee is terminated shortly after disclosing pregnancy. In this case, Adjudicator Dawson was not convinced by the Commission’s arguments. I would like to reassure the public that the Commission will continue to investigate complaints thoroughly and to send complaints to hearings where it finds that there is sufficient evidence of discrimination or harassment.”
Two more discrimination complaints relating to pregnancy are anticipated to be heard publicly during the summer of 2015.