A workplace discrimination complaint, filed by a woman of Middle Eastern descent and a non-practicing Muslim, is proceeding to a full hearing after the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal denied the employer’s bid to dismiss it.
She alleges that during her employment with 0704121 BC Ltd. and Gandy Installations Ltd., she was subjected to persistent racist, Islamophobic, and sexist comments. Examples include coworkers wishing her “happy holidays” on Sept. 11, the Service Manager referring to a delivery driver wearing a turban as a “fucking terrorist,” and frequent comments about her body and those of other female employees.
She also alleges that the respondents mishandled her reports of being sexually assaulted by a coworker—once in 2016 and again in 2019—and that her employment was terminated based on her mental disability, specifically anxiety and depression.
In a decision rendered by Tribunal Member Laila Said Alam, the Tribunal found that the complaint filed by M.M.G. awarrants a full hearing to determine its merits. The employer’s application to dismiss the complaint under sections 27(1)(b), (c), (d), and (g) of the Human Rights Code was denied.
Employer’s application to dismiss
The respondents denied the allegations and applied to dismiss the complaint. They argued that the comments should be viewed as isolated incidents and, even if proven, do not breach the Code. They also contended that there is no reasonable prospect of establishing a connection between her protected characteristics and the alleged adverse treatment, including the handling of her assault reports and her termination. Additionally, they claimed they were unaware of any mental disability requiring accommodation.
Regarding the 2016 assault allegation, the respondents argued it was filed out of time and should be dismissed under section 27(1)(g) of the Code. They maintained that M.M.G. did not report the assault until 2019 and that they acted appropriately once informed.
Tribunal’s analysis and decision
The Tribunal considered whether the complaint was timely and whether it constituted a continuing contravention. Tribunal Member Alam noted that the complaint alleges a poisoned work environment due to ongoing harassment and discrimination, which can be considered a continuing contravention under section 22(2) of the Code.
“I am satisfied that [M.M.G.’s] allegations establish a continuing contravention,” Alam wrote. “Her complaint is not limited to the allegations about their failure to address her sexual assault appropriately in 2016 and 2019. [She] has alleged a poisoned work environment where the respondents knew or ought to have known about discriminatory comments in the workplace and did nothing to prevent or address it.”
On the issue of whether the complaint has a reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal emphasized that the threshold is low and that many human rights complaints involve issues of credibility that require a hearing to resolve. “I cannot find that there is no reasonable prospect [she] can prove a connection between her protected characteristics and her allegations that the respondents mishandled her sexual assault report,” Alam stated.
The Tribunal also addressed the employer’s duty to inquire about potential disabilities affecting performance. Citing precedent, Alam wrote, “When an employer is aware, or reasonably ought to be aware, that there may be a relationship between the disability and the performance, the employer has a duty to inquire into that possible relationship before making an adverse decision based on performance.”
Conclusion
The Tribunal’s denial of the employer’s application to dismiss allows the complaint to proceed to a full hearing, where evidence can be presented, and credibility assessed. The case serves as a reminder for employers to carefully consider their obligations under the Human Rights Code and to ensure that workplace policies and responses to complaints meet legal standards.
“The application to dismiss the complaint is denied under sections 27(1)(b), (c), (d), and (g). The complaint will be scheduled for a hearing,” concluded Tribunal Member Alam.
For more information, see Moghaddam-Ghadimi v. 0704121 BC Ltd. dba Gandy HVAC and others, 2024 BCHRT 274 (CanLII).
