The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta has upheld a decision to dismiss a complaint alleging workplace discrimination based on mental disability, finding that the complainant’s termination was not linked to her medical leave.
The complainant, S.A., was employed as a director at Lethbridge Family Services when the organization initiated three separate workplace investigations into her conduct. During the investigation process, S.A. was placed on administrative leave.
Around the same time the investigations concluded, S.A. was hospitalized for mental health reasons and subsequently placed on medical leave by her employer. She returned to work approximately one year later, only to be terminated for cause on the same day.
S.A. filed a complaint under the Alberta Human Rights Act, alleging that her termination was discriminatory and based on her mental disability. The Director of the Commission dismissed the complaint, determining that it had no reasonable prospect of success. S.A. sought a review of that decision, arguing that the timing of her termination suggested it was linked to her medical leave and required further examination at a hearing.
The employer maintained that the decision to terminate S.A. was made in October 2019, prior to her medical leave, after two internal investigations substantiated misconduct allegations against her. However, the termination was delayed until S.A. returned to work. The respondent also asserted that, aside from the timing of the termination, documentary evidence demonstrated just cause for dismissal.
The Tribunal conducted a fresh review of the case under Section 26 of the Act and upheld the Director’s dismissal of the complaint. It noted that while the timing of a termination in proximity to a medical leave can create an inference of discrimination, timing alone is not sufficient to establish a claim. The onus then shifts to the employer to provide a reasonable explanation, which the respondent did.
The investigations, which included an external review, found that S.A. engaged in serious workplace misconduct. Findings included a failure to provide a psychologically safe workplace, breaches of confidentiality, improper physical restraint of a client, and inadequate response to employee safety concerns. The Tribunal determined that these findings, along with S.A.’s documented performance issues, provided sufficient grounds for termination.
In its analysis, the Tribunal acknowledged S.A.’s argument that the credibility of the employer’s timeline should be tested at a hearing. However, it found no material discrepancy in the timing of the decision to terminate employment. The Tribunal noted that the employer’s decision was based on the results of the investigations and longstanding performance issues, not on the complainant’s disability.
As a result, the Tribunal ruled that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and upheld its dismissal.
