A 53-year-old executive assistant who was subjected to comments about her age and appearance before being fired just one month into the role has been awarded $38,000 — including $25,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect — by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Adjudicator Romona Gananathan concluded that C.T., who was hired in February 2019, endured a “poisoned work environment” at IMS Incorporated before her unexpected termination. The decision states that the workplace atmosphere was marked by harassing and discriminatory remarks made by IMS’s Chief Executive Officer, L.D., particularly directed at C.T. and other female employees.
According to the decision, C.T. was the oldest employee at the firm besides L.D. and was one of only a few individuals who were not in their 20s or 30s.
Commentary about age, remarks of a sexual nature
The ruling describes multiple incidents where L.D. allegedly commented on C.T.’s age and made remarks of a sexual nature.
In one instance, the decision states that L.D. looked C.T. “up and down” and said, “I wonder what you will look like in ten years.” Adjudicator Gananathan wrote that this remark “engages both the applicant’s sex and age” and “sexualizes the applicant” while also drawing attention to her aging process.
C.T. told the tribunal that L.D. referred to female staff as “little girls” and male employees as “boys.” She testified that L.D. asked four female employees, including her, if they would “date” him. According to the decision, these remarks contributed to a hostile and discriminatory environment.
Worker ‘too experienced’ and not ‘right fit’ for culture: Employer
IMS, meanwhile, denied the allegations, arguing that C.T. was a probationary employee and that her termination had nothing to do with protected grounds. The company contended that she was “too experienced to work at a small company” and “not the right fit for the corporate culture,” rather than being dismissed because of her age or sex.
However, the tribunal did not accept these explanations. Instead, it found that the employer’s reasoning did not hold up under scrutiny.
Adjudicator Gananathan noted several credibility concerns with the testimony of IMS’s witnesses, including that of L.D. According to the decision, L.D.’s statements were “exaggerated, contradictory, and evasive.” For instance, he claimed to have an “open door policy” while also acknowledging that his door was often locked. The adjudicator found his evidence evasive, particularly on the issue of whether he was aware of the applicant’s older age relative to the rest of the staff. At one point, L.D. responded to a question about the applicant’s age by saying, “I don’t know… are you telling me she is over 50?” The decision states that this type of testimony lacked credibility.
The adjudicator also placed less weight on the testimony of J.B., IMS’s Chief Operating Officer, finding contradictions in her evidence. J.B. testified that IMS had policies and an inclusive environment, but admitted that the current harassment policy dated January 2020, after C.T. had left. The decision states that J.B. and other witnesses who supported IMS’s narrative may have had an interest in protecting their employer.
Worker’s testimony credible
In contrast, the adjudicator found C.T.’s testimony to be consistent and credible. C.T. said she experienced a pattern of comments and behaviour that made her feel uncomfortable and discriminated against. She noted that L.D. would frequently lose his temper, lock himself in his office, and require employees—primarily through his executive assistant—to enter only if absolutely necessary. The decision states that “it was clear that there was a culture of intimidation” and that staff were hesitant to enter L.D.’s office without permission.
C.T. further testified that she attempted to raise her concerns with E.G., an external human resources consultant engaged by IMS. According to the ruling, C.T. told E.G. about the inappropriate behaviour and was advised to be patient, that “he runs the show.”
The tribunal found that IMS did not investigate C.T.’s concerns. Instead, the discrimination and the poisoned atmosphere were left unaddressed, contributing to C.T.’s feeling that the environment had become intolerable.
Shortly after receiving a slight pay raise — an action that at first suggested she was meeting performance expectations — C.T. was abruptly terminated. The termination letter cited her “too senior” experiences and the lack of opportunities for advancement in the small firm. The adjudicator found this explanation suspicious, noting that the employer knew C.T.’s background before hiring her and that it had praised her performance just days before dismissing her.
Age and sex a factor
The decision states, “I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant’s age and sex were factors in her termination, particularly given she had no warning and was told that she was performing well.” It further concludes that references to her assertiveness, “senior” level of experience, and so-called “motherly” signage in the washroom aligned with stereotypes related to her age and sex.
From a legal standpoint, the tribunal’s reasoning drew on sections 5, 7, and 9 of the Human Rights Code, emphasizing that all employees have the right to be free from discrimination and harassment in their workplace. Citing established jurisprudence, the adjudicator found that comments and conduct related to Code-protected grounds had contaminated the work environment, making discrimination a condition of C.T.’s employment. The decision also highlighted the employer’s failure to adequately respond to or investigate reports of discrimination, which contravenes an employer’s responsibilities under the Code.
As part of the remedy, IMS must pay C.T. $13,000 in lost wages to compensate for the period between her termination in mid-March 2019 and the date she secured another job in May 2019, as well as the difference in salary she incurred. She also received $25,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, an amount in line with tribunal jurisprudence for such cases. The tribunal further ordered the respondent to pay pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at specified rates.
For more information, see Tenthorey v. IMS Incorporated, 2024 HRTO 1740 (CanLII).
