0

From another website: A is autistic but has always done a good job. The company gets a new manager M who hates autistic people. M fires A for some made-up reason. By coincidence the owner of the company finds out, A is reinstated, and M gets fired.

A doesn’t want to sue the company, but is obviously unhappy about what M did. Is there anything that she could sue M personally for successfully? If not for the coincidence that the company owner found out just at the right time, A would have lost their job through illegal discrimination, so this would have been an attempt at illegal discrimination.

gnasher729
  • 34,028
  • 2
  • 46
  • 88
  • 3
    Where is Company located? The answer will vary from one jurisdiction to the next. – bdb484 Oct 13 '22 at 21:14
  • 2
    What remedy would A be asking the court to grant in their lawsuit? They already have their job restored. – brhans Oct 13 '22 at 21:24

1 Answers1

2

I know you have asked about whether A can "personally sue M." I present another alternative: a complaint to a human rights commission or tribunal.

In Canada and its provinces there are human rights commissions/tribunals established to vindicate the rights granted under Canada's Human Rights Act and similar provincial human rights statutes. M's actions appear to be prohibited discrimination under all of these statutes, even though A ultimately did not lose her job. M's actions are not merely an attempt at prohibited discrimination; they are prohibted discrimination. Whether M's actions and a connection to a "prohibited ground of discrimination" can be proven is a separate issue.

For example, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is a "discriminatory practice" to "harass an individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination" "in matters related to employment." Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, "Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace... because of ... disability."

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal says (and I've highlighted a couple of the remedies that seem particuarly relevant to your hypothetical):

If the Tribunal finds that a complaint of discrimination is eatablished, it can make an order against the person who engaged in the discriminatory practice. This order can include the following terms:

  • cease the discriminatory practice and take measures to prevent the practice from occurring in the future (see s. 53(2)(a) of the Act);
  • make available to the victim the rights, opportunities or privileges that were denied (see s. 53(2)(b) of the Act);
  • compensate the victim for any lost wages as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(c) of the Act);
  • compensate the victim for the additional costs of obtaining alternative goods, services, facilities or accommodation as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(d) of the Act);
  • compensate the victim up to $20,000 for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(e) of the Act);
  • compensate the victim up to $20,000 if the discrimination was wilful or reckless (see s. 53(3) of the Act); and,
  • award interest on an order to pay financial compensation (see s. 53(4) of the Act).

Similar remedies are available in British Columbia.

Jen
  • 54,294
  • 5
  • 110
  • 242
  • 1
    Thank you. To take away: 1. It's discrimination even if it fails. 2. A court could tell Manager M not to discriminate against people (presumably in other jobs) and take measures to avoid it. 3. In this case where the discrimination was fully intentional, M could be ordered to pay compensation to the victim. Proably without need for damages, because otherwise the bolded paragraph would be pointless. – gnasher729 Oct 14 '22 at 10:10