Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Reductio ad Absurdum of "Human Rights" Cases In Ontario--Punishing an Employer Who DIDN'T Discriminate Against an Employee

The days of redressing blatant bigotry in areas of, say, housing and employment are long gone. In our time, this is what "human rights" has come down to--rewarding a member of a special victim group because he's a member of a special victim group, and punishing his employer not for treating him unfairly, but for refusing to kowtow to his threats:
The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to establish that he was discriminated against in any way. He was not allocated menial and demeaning job tasks, he was not disciplined, and he was not the subject of client complaints on the basis of his colour. However, the Tribunal did conclude that Herman Miller had not diligently followed up on his (unfounded) complaint that he was being discriminated against in the workplace. It also found that the Applicant’s employment was terminated in part because he had raised issues of harassment and threatened to sue the company. This was said to be an act of reprisal against the Applicant. 
The Tribunal awarded the applicant $55,799.70 in damages for lost wages (representing 14 months of lost wages) and $15,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. 
Herman Miller Canada Inc. was also ordered to retain a human rights expert to review and revise its human rights policies and train any employee with the rank of management or higher with respect to human rights. Finally, Mr. Fermo [then-President of Workplace Resources] was ordered to complete the “Human Rights 101 eLearning Module” prepared by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, even though he was no longer employed by Herman Miller Canada Inc. 
This decision is disturbing in that it awards significant human rights damages to an individual who was not discriminated against in any way. Employers will be surprised to learn that a failure to seriously investigate an unfounded allegation of discrimination could result in an award of almost a year and a half’s salary for an employee. The award of general damages seems to mean that the Tribunal accepted that a failure to investigate an unfounded complaint could somehow cause injury to the  complainant's "dignity, feelings and sef-respect."...
Unfreakingbelievable! Why even bother going through the motions of adjudicating such cases when the "human rights" kangaroos are given free reign to render these sorts of Kafkaesque judgments?

No comments: