WINNIPEG – Manitoba’s Human Rights Commission says it is “disappointed” that an adjudicator has rejected a woman’s claim that she lost her job because she became pregnant.
Audrey Blatz was hired in a senior executive capacity at 4L Communications in 2007 and soon after received a promotion and pay raise. In December 2008 Blatz got another bump in salary due to a profit sharing agreement: that same month she informed her boss she had become pregnant.
Blatz was fired in April 2009; she claims it was because her doctor had encouraged her to reduce her workload due to complications in the pregnancy, and her boss felt she would be unable to do her job.
But company owner Al Koop denied the pregnancy played any role in her dismissal, pointing instead to alleged poor work performance and a poor fit with 4L Communications’ “team player” corporate culture. Other current and former employees gave evidence that supported this claim, according to the adjudicator’s ruling.
“I accept that the respondent had concerns about the performance of the complainant, and these concerns alone were the basis for its decision to terminate the complainant’s employment. I find no evidence that suggests the pregnancy of the complaint played any part in the decision to terminate Ms Blatz’s employment,” adjudicator Robert Dawson wrote in the May 20 decision, released Friday.
Manitoba’s Human Rights Commission had earlier decided there was sufficient evidence to support Blatz’s claim that she was fired due to her pregnancy, and forwarded the matter to the independent adjudicator for a decision that could have led to compensation for the complainant.
The decision against Blatz disappointed the Human Rights Commission.
“This decision raises some concern,” Board of Commissioners chairwoman Yvonne Peters wrote in a news release Friday. “We know that discrimination today is not overt and can be very subtle, regardless of whether it is based on pregnancy, ancestry or any of the other grounds The Code protects. In reviewing complaints of discrimination, it is important to examine the evidence as a whole and not rely on only direct evidence of discriminatory behaviour. As case law supports, discrimination may be inferred based on the conduct of individuals, especially in cases where an employee is terminated shortly after disclosing pregnancy. In this case, Adjudicator Dawson was not convinced by the Commission’s arguments. I would like to reassure the public that the Commission will continue to investigate complaints thoroughly and to send complaints to hearings where it finds that there is sufficient evidence of discrimination or harassment.”
Comments