It is sad when editorial writers so obviously tip their hand. They try so hard to convince you that they are of the right opinion. Too often it comes across as bitter lemonade as their hard prejudices are added to the mix.
Within the first paragraph of his scribe against the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Mr. Howard Levitt freely pegs himself as an overly privileged dunce. He boldly proclaims that discrimination, simply, does not happen.
Prodded by like-minded legislators and courts, these government agencies set their sights on ferreting out now illusory workplace discrimination.
Not that he wants to back that up with facts or anything, he just “knows”. Unfortunately anyone who has bothered to walk outside of the suburbs, or even actually look at earnings divided by race, gender, and ability knows this to not be true.
He also “knows” that the Human Rights Tribunal doesn’t actually help anyone. It is simply a witch hunt on the employers of Ontario. He starts ranting about the Human Rights Legal Support Centre with all the expertise of a two year old on advanced calculus.
With little or no disincentive for employees to proceed, no mechanism to weed out frivolous complaints (…)
Of course if he couldn’t actually be bothered to explain the process to get before the tribunal. That might just show that individuals cannot just walk into legal proceeding for the heck of it. There is a two tier process before complainants can bring their case. Which is exactly why case applications are now made through the Legal Support Centre instead of being filed directly with the tribunal.
They start off by hearing your complaint and tell you during that conversation (most original queries made over the phone) whether or not you have a human rights case. Many cases are not brought any further than this. Having actually spoken to people involved in the process they simply cannot take all the complaints made, there is just not the time. Therefore they try to take the strongest cases, the ones with the most merit, to be tried in front of the tribunal. So the idea that they just push tons of frivolous lawsuits through the system is ridiculous and pure agenda pushing.
If a case makes it through an initial consultation they are then given an interview with a legal professional to discuss their case, their options and their possible outcomes. Then it is decided whether or not the case should be filed with the tribunal. Please keep in mind that there are only about 30 people in all of Ontario performing these interviews. They are also the ones providing legal aid, a service they will not provide if your case doesn’t have any merit. Again it comes down to allocating time to those who are considered priority cases, not throwing around lawsuits for the heck of it.
Of course you can always bring up dismissive anecdotes, with a combination of snark and omission.
A recent example is the case of 20-year-old Jessica Maciel, who worked exactly one day as a receptionist for a hair salon. She filed a human rights application claiming she was terminated because of her pregnancy. The tribuanl(*) sided with Maciel and awarded her more than $35,000 in damages for lost wages, maternity leave benefits and injury to her dignity. Damages for wrongful dismissal would have been insignificant.
Not a bad outcome for a day’s work. No wonder so many employees prefer to roll the dice and go to hearings.
Of course what Levitt doesn’t tell you that maintaining full-time employment is crucial in obtaining full parental benefits from the federal government. Even a few weeks of unemployment in the weeks leading up to a birth can cost an individuals thousands in parental leave benefits.
What he doesn’t tell you is that the salon was perfectly fine with Ms. Maciel, until she actually told her employer she was expecting. She was told to report to management, who then promptly fired her.
What he doesn’t tell you is that THEY HAD DONE THIS BEFORE. Yes, that poor, put upon, salon had a history of firing women who worked in their employ was they became pregnant. That kind of puts things in perspective doesn’t it?
The truth is this case was as much about giving punitive damage as it was compensating the victim. Does anyone honestly believe that if the salon only had to pay only lost wages, which Mr. Levitt asserts should only be about a day’s worth, it would really stop them from continuing its discriminatory practices? No, they would continue to fire pregnant women while handing them check for a hundred bucks as they kicked them out the door.
* Spelling mistake not corrected from the original quote
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.