The Alberta Human Rights Commission has dismissed a discrimination complaint filed by an employee of the City of Calgary.
The worker, SK, alleged that the city discriminated against her in employment practices on the grounds of mental and physical disability, a claim which the Commission ultimately found to be without merit.
“I empathize with the complainant who appears to sincerely believe that she has been discriminated against in her workplace,” the Commission said in its ruling.
“However, there is no information on the record to support the complainant’s assertions… the information demonstrates a respondent who has been responsive, accommodating and acting in good faith.”
Block growth, additional duties without extra pay
SK’s complaint, which cited issues like blocked professional growth opportunities, additional duties without extra compensation, and improper information disclosure, was initially dismissed by the Director of the Commission.
SK then sought a review of this decision under section 26 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.
The Commission’s review focused on whether the complaint should have been dismissed. It upheld the Director’s initial dismissal, stating that the complaint lacked sufficient merit to proceed.
City denies allegations
The City of Calgary denied all allegations of discrimination, noting that some incidents cited by SK fell outside the one-year limitation period for complaints under the Act. The city provided detailed responses to each allegation, including those outside the limitation period, which were considered for context only.
The Commission’s analysis considered whether the complaint had a reasonable prospect of success, applying a low threshold for assessing merit. It found no reasonable basis to proceed to a hearing on the grounds of change of Commission personnel, credibility assessment, and events prior to the limitation period.
The Commission acknowledged that while SK sincerely believed she faced discrimination, there was no substantial evidence to support her assertions. The city was found to have accommodated SK’s disabilities, and the Commission noted that it is not within their role to determine the cause of her disabilities or to second-guess the city’s business decisions.
“The (City of Calgary) has accommodated the complainant, even where the complainant’s role is not necessarily conducive to certain restrictions required by the complainant’s disabilities, such as working from home,” the Commission said.
The complaint, including additional information and allegations post-dating the original complaint, was therefore dismissed.
SK is also pursuing a remedy for this alleged mistreatment through the City of Calgary’s grievance process, the Commission noted. That grievance process had been suspended pending its decision.
For more information, see Khan v The City of Calgary, 2023 AHRC 116 (CanLII)
