A former employee’s claim that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race, ancestry, and place of origin has been dismissed by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
Tribunal Member Edward Takayanagi found that the complainant, A.W., a refugee from Saudi Arabia originally from Egypt, failed to prove that his former employer, Columbia Glazing Systems Inc., and its owner violated the Human Rights Code.
A.W. alleged that he was denied a promised promotion and subjected to discriminatory remarks about his refugee status, which led him to quit his job. However, after a thorough examination of the evidence, including an audio recording made by him without his employer’s knowledge, the Tribunal concluded that A.W.’s claims were unsubstantiated.
Allegations and evidence
A.W. was employed as a production worker at Columbia Glazing Systems, a manufacturer of architectural glazing systems, from December 2019 until he resigned in December 2020. He claimed that in August 2020, the company’s project manager left him a voicemail offering him a promotion to an office position as an estimator. He further alleged that when he inquired about the promotion in November 2020, the owner berated him, making disparaging comments about his status as a refugee and ultimately denying him the promotion.
The respondents, Columbia Glazing Systems and the owner, denied these allegations. They argued that no promotion was ever promised and that A.W. did not possess the necessary qualifications for the estimator role. They also denied making any discriminatory remarks, asserting that A.W.’s refugee status was not a factor in their employment decisions.
Tribunal’s findings
The Tribunal’s decision hinged largely on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented. Takayanagi found that A.W.’s testimony regarding the alleged voicemail was “vague and unreliable.” He noted that A.W. did not submit the voicemail itself as evidence, instead relying on a notification from his phone service indicating that a voicemail was received. The Tribunal found this insufficient to support his claim that he was offered a promotion.
In assessing the evidence, the Tribunal considered a series of text messages exchanged between A.W. and the project manager following the alleged voicemail. The content of these messages did not mention the job offer, which the Tribunal found inconsistent with A.W.’s assertion that he had been promised a promotion.
The Tribunal also found the respondents’ testimony more credible, particularly concerning the qualifications required for the estimator position. The project manager testified that the role required specific experience in the glazing industry, project management, and knowledge of the construction industry — qualifications that A.W. did not possess.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence to support A.W.’s claim that the owner made discriminatory remarks about his refugee status. An audio recording made by A.W. during a meeting with the owner and the project manager on November 20, 2020, was deemed the most reliable piece of evidence. Contrary to A.W.’s allegations, the recording revealed that the owner expressed concern about A.W.’s failure to disclose his immigration status during the hiring process but did not make any disparaging or threatening remarks.
Conclusion
Takayanagi concluded that A.W. failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was promised a promotion or that the owner made discriminatory comments about his race, ancestry, or place of origin. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed A.W.’s complaint in its entirety.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of credible evidence in discrimination claims. While A.W.’s status as a refugee was acknowledged as a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal found that he did not experience an adverse impact in his employment related to this status.
His claims of constructive dismissal were also dismissed, as the Tribunal found no evidence that Columbia Glazing Systems created a work environment so hostile that A.W. was compelled to resign. Without proof of the alleged discriminatory actions, the Tribunal determined that A.W. was not constructively dismissed and that his resignation was not the result of any misconduct by his employer.
For more information, see Wafi v. Columbia Glazing Systems and another, 2024 BCHRT 215.
