An Alberta human rights tribunal has dismissed a racial discrimination complaint by a former accountant at Edmonton’s Palace Casino (now operating as Starlight Casino), concluding that race was not a factor in her dismissal or alleged workplace mistreatment.
The complainant, Y.Z., alleged she faced discrimination due to her Asian heritage and that her termination was racially motivated. After reviewing testimony from multiple employees and examining workplace practices, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal concluded Y.Z. did not provide sufficient evidence to prove race played a role in her dismissal or differential treatment.
Y.Z., who began working at Palace Casino’s accounting department in 2006 and was promoted several times before becoming senior accountant in July 2012, was dismissed without cause four months later as part of an organizational restructuring and cost-saving initiative. Her termination coincided with the dismissal of another Asian employee, raising questions about racial discrimination.
Workplace language dispute
One of the key allegations centred around restrictions on speaking Mandarin at work. Y.Z. claimed she was unfairly prohibited from speaking her first language, Mandarin, in the workplace.
However, the tribunal found no evidence that management prohibited Mandarin. Instead, testimony indicated concerns arose because of disruptions due to loud phone conversations rather than language itself.
Y.Z. herself admitted to volunteering to cease speaking Mandarin to address these complaints.
Lunch break treatment
The complainant also alleged that Asian employees faced stricter rules regarding lunch breaks. Specifically, Y.Z. testified that the new controller, hired in 2012, enforced rigid lunch breaks, singling out Asian employees for reprimand when they returned late.
However, the tribunal concluded no discriminatory pattern was established, as no evidence indicated that non-Asian employees received more favourable treatment. The tribunal noted tensions during this period were likely influenced by the controller’s personal circumstances, including the death of her father.
Salary discrepancies
Y.Z. also raised concerns about a pay differential between herself and S.K., a White male accountant hired at a higher salary for a similar role.
Although the tribunal confirmed a salary difference of approximately seven per cent ($3,771 annually), it accepted the employer’s explanation that the higher salary offered to S.K. was driven by market conditions and the need to attract external candidates.
The tribunal noted internal salary increases were limited by policy, restricting the company’s ability to match salaries internally.
Termination based on cost savings and leadership skills
Regarding her termination, the tribunal heard evidence suggesting the decision was part of broader cost-saving measures, including consolidating accounting functions with the company’s Vancouver head office.
Regional operations manager S.M. testified the decision to retain P.G., a White accountant, over Y.Z. was due to P.G.’s stronger leadership and interpersonal skills. P.G. was described by multiple colleagues as approachable, supportive, and better suited to training responsibilities than Y.Z.
The respondent also cited concerns about Y.Z.’s willingness to accept a demotion and salary cut, given previous dissatisfaction she expressed regarding compensation. Additionally, unproven allegations of misconduct related to salary information handling and an accidental salary overpayment issue were factors in the respondent’s decision.
While the tribunal did not substantiate these allegations, it determined the employer’s overall rationale was genuine and not a pretext for discrimination.
Allegations of racial animus rejected
The tribunal also rejected broader allegations of racial animus against Asian employees within the accounting department. Witness testimony did not establish that the new controller exhibited discriminatory behaviour, nor was sufficient evidence presented to support claims that the controller favoured creating an “all-white” department.
The tribunal acknowledged that the complainant sincerely believed she faced discrimination but emphasized that subjective beliefs alone do not constitute proof. Credible testimony from other employees, combined with evidence of genuine financial pressures facing the employer, supported the company’s explanation.
In concluding the case, the tribunal underscored that the complainant failed to provide evidence compelling enough to demonstrate that race was more likely a factor in her termination than the reasons provided by the employer.
The complaint was therefore dismissed.
For more information, see Zhang v GC & E Limited – Palace Casino, 2025 AHRC 29 (CanLII).
