The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has accepted a complaint alleging sexual harassment and assault by a then 15-year-old girl by her supervisor, despite the fact it was submitted outside the standard one-year time limit.
The ruling underscores the Tribunal’s commitment to addressing workplace misconduct, especially involving vulnerable groups such as minors.
Worker alleges repeated harassment, assault
The worker, who began her job as a cashier at the unnamed store in July 2021 at the age of 15, reported multiple instances of harassment by her supervisor.
According to the complaint, the supervisor’s behaviour included unsolicited hugs, inappropriate touching, and escalating physical assaults. The worker alleged that these incidents occurred in front of customers and were reported to a senior staff member, Ms. J, who acknowledged the supervisor’s past misconduct but took no effective action.
Escalation of misconduct
The Tribunal’s decision details the supervisor’s progressively aggressive behaviour. By September 2021, the worker reported being grabbed by the neck and slapped on the buttocks by the supervisor. Despite further complaints to Ms. J, no significant measures were taken to address the situation, and the misconduct continued unabated.
In a particularly disturbing incident in January or February 2022, the supervisor allegedly approached the worker from behind while she was assisting a customer and grabbed her crotch.
The worker resigned in March 2022, citing the supervisor’s actions and the store and its parent company’s failure to intervene.
Timeliness and continuing contravention
The central issue in this ruling was whether the complaint, filed on July 17, 2023, could be accepted given the one-year limitation under Section 22(1) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the supervisor’s conduct constituted a “continuing contravention” of the Code, as defined under Section 22(2).
This decision was supported by the supervisor’s continued harassment, including an incident in August 2022, where he violated a no-contact order by appearing at the worker’s new place of employment.
Public interest and delay justification
The Tribunal also considered whether it was in the public interest to accept the late complaint against the store and parent company.
The decision noted that the worker, a minor at the time of the incidents, had been traumatized and was receiving support from the Crime Victims Assistance Program. The Tribunal recognized that victims of sexual assault often delay reporting due to fear of stigma and mental health impacts.
Given the Worker’s age, her involvement in the criminal process, and the significant mental health challenges she faced, the Tribunal concluded that these factors justified the delay.
The Tribunal emphasized that allowing the complaint to proceed serves the public interest by encouraging young and vulnerable employees to report sexual harassment and assault.
No substantial prejudice to tespondents
The Tribunal found no substantial prejudice to the store and parent company due to the delay in filing. The Respondents had been aware of the Worker’s allegations since August 2021, which should have prompted them to preserve relevant evidence.
The Respondents did not submit any arguments or evidence to suggest that the delay had caused them significant harm.
Protecting privacy
In a separate order, the Tribunal decided to limit the publication of names involved in the case to protect the privacy of the minor complainant.
This decision aligns with the Tribunal’s practice of anonymizing minors and ensures that the public can scrutinize the proceedings without compromising the individuals’ privacy.
For more information, see The Worker v. The Store and others, 2024 BCHRT 187 (CanLII).
