The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that a forklift driver was fired because of workplace violence, and not because of discrimination on the basis of race, colour and ancestry.
The tribunal dismissed the discrimination complaint filed by SJ against his former employer, Wallace and Carey Inc., and three of its employees.
The respondents, Wallace and Carey Inc. and its employees, denied any discrimination, asserting that SJ’s employment was terminated for cause and unrelated to his protected characteristics. They applied for the complaint’s dismissal under s. 27(1)(b) and (c) of the Human Rights Code.
The tribunal considered all the information filed by the parties and concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that SJ’s protected characteristics were a factor in his termination. The evidence presented indicated that the termination was a result of his involvement in a physical altercation at work, which violated the company’s policy against workplace violence.
SJ declined to submit a response to the dismissal application, providing only written materials as his full response. The tribunal determined that he had been given a fair opportunity to participate, and there was no breach of procedural fairness.
The case hinged on conflicting accounts of the altercation that took place on May 14, 2019. While SJ claimed to be a victim of workplace violence and denied using physical force against his co-worker, the respondents contended that their investigation revealed both parties were equally at fault for violating the workplace violence policy.
The respondents provided documentary evidence, including the signed Workplace Violence Policy, an Investigation Report, and earlier warning letters issued to SJ for similar infractions, supporting their decision to terminate his employment.
In contrast, SJ’s claims lacked corroborative affidavit or credible documentary evidence.
To establish discrimination under s. 13 of the Code, SJ needed to show that his protected characteristics were a factor in his termination. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support this connection and ruled in favor of the respondents.
For more information, see Jhawar v. Wallace and Carey Inc. and others, 2023 BCHRT 60 (CanLII)
