Tag: #SchoolEmployee

Posted on

Workplace Stress – Bad Boss – Not necessarily discrimination

Matheson v. School District No. 53 (Okanagan Similkameen) and Collis, 2009 BCHRT 112

[14]           Stress, in itself, is not a disability for the purposes of the Code.  In particular, workplace stress resulting from an employer investigating alleged performance problems, or from a problematic relationship with a supervisor, is not alone sufficient to constitute a disability for Code purposes.  The stress alleged by Ms. Matheson was reactive to her workplace situation, and she does not say that, at any point, she notified her employer of an ongoing mental health issue.

[15]           Despite the respondents’ submissions questioning Ms. Matheson’s allegations of mental disability, Ms. Matheson did not provide any evidence or further information in support of her alleged mental disability in her response to the application.

[16]           On the materials before me, I am satisfied that Ms. Matheson has no reasonable prospect of establishing that she had a mental disability which was either known, or should have been known, to the respondents during the course of her employment.  Nor does she have a reasonable prospect of establishing that they were under a duty to inquire whether she had a mental disability.

[17]           Further, on my review of the entirety of the materials, it is clear that Ms. Matheson’s real concern is based on her belief that Mr. Collis ill-treated her.  She alleges that he “micro-managed” and “hounded” her, “thrived on gossip” and “enjoyed making inappropriate comments about” her, and was otherwise unprofessional and unethical in his dealings with her.  She refers to having “distrusted” him “immensely”.  Mr. Collis denies these allegations, and I make no findings with respect to them. 

[18]           If Ms. Matheson’s allegations about Mr. Collis’ behaviour are true, they would not provide a basis for a complaint of discrimination contrary to the Code.  The Code does not prohibit all bad behaviour, including all bad management behaviour.  It prohibits discriminatory behaviour on the grounds prohibited in the Code.  Here, Ms. Matheson’s allegations, if true, suggest personal harassment and mismanagement, matters potentially grievable under a collective agreement.  They do not suggest discrimination on the basis of mental disability, because they do not suggest any connection between the alleged bad behaviour and Ms. Matheson’s mental disability, real or perceived.

[19]           For all of these reasons, I am satisfied that Ms. Matheson has no reasonable prospect of establishing that the respondents discriminated against her in employment on the basis of mental disability.

IV      conclusion

[20]           The complaint is dismissed.

**************

You have to have a protected ground first. This person didn’t have that. As always, I encourage you to read the case in full.

There are other ways to deal with bad bosses. Your school district will have workplace bullying and harassment procedures, and filing a complaint with WorkSafe might be an option. You may also need to be in contact with your union and file a grievance with your union before you even consider a human rights complaint.

School districts jump when WorkSafe is involved. You can submit a mental health injury claim.

From the WorkSafe website:

********

Benefits for an accepted mental health injury claim

If we accept your claim, the type and duration of benefits you receive will depend on the medical and psychological evidence and the nature of the mental health injury.

Benefits may include the following:

  • Support for returning to work
  • Compensation for lost wages
  • The costs of treatment by a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist
  • The costs of treatment for a mental health program
  • The costs of prescription drugs needed to treat the condition

If you are experiencing bullying or harassment

If you are experiencing bullying or harassment in your workplace, please review our bullying and harassment information to see how to report it and learn about your next steps. 

*********

Employment issues in school districts can be challenging to navigate; I highly suggest you consult with a lawyer if you are considering filing a human rights complaint. One thing I do want to highlight is that there are laws on whether employees are allowed to record their colleagues or not. There has been a lot of law stating no, and that you could lose your job over this. Some other case law has said depending on the context. The one-person consent rule is very different in an employee context, and I HIGHLY suggest you contact a lawyer if you are considering recording anyone at work. Consulting a lawyer could save your job. There are certain issues that ChatGPT is not going to help you with, and this is one of them. Don’t just do your internet research. This topic is one you need legal advice for. I can’t stress this enough.

There is another very important case related to stress in the workplace and how it needs to meet the legal test of discrimination: this case.

I highly encourage an employee to read this blog regarding employment and stress. You must be negatively impacted in your employment, not your life. There is going to be a lot of unfairness or wrongness that could be happening at work. It doesn’t mean it’s going to meet the legal test of discrimination in an employment situation.

I also suggest you read the blog: Does a Single Comment Violate the Code? It may save you from the experience of navigating a system you don’t need to be.

I have read A LOT of school district employee human rights decisions. Not all work issues are going to be resolved with state intervention via the BC Human Rights Tribunal. This is just one avenue among many. There are a lot of things to consider. When it comes to employment and if you are still working in the district, I don’t suggest this be your automatic knee-jerk reaction go-to. Consult with an employment-human rights lawyer and think about it. I suggest you also read a lot of school district employee human rights decisions. You can look through them all from BC here.

Posted on

Does a single comment violate the Code?

Staff and parents have filed or are considering filing a human rights complaint because of a comment another employee or educator said to them at work or during an IEP meeting.

The story comes out. Followed by some version of: “I can’t believe they said that to me.”

Does a single comment violate the Code?

*********

Brito v. Affordable Housing Societies and another, 2017 BCHRT 270

[41]           However, not every negative comment that is connected to a protected characteristic will be discriminatory harassment contrary to the Code. It is certainly undesirable for people to treat each other rudely, disrespectfully, or inappropriately. However, it is not the Tribunal’s purpose to adjudicate disputes other than where a person’s protected characteristic has presented as a barrier in their ability to fully, and with dignity, access an area of life protected by the Code. In performing this function, the Tribunal is cognizant that the disputes brought to it arise between human beings, with all the imperfection that entails. Not every failure to be kind or professional requires state intervention. This includes failures with discriminatory overtones – and therefore highlights a distinction between comments that may be “discriminatory” in the everyday sense of that word, and comments that amount to discrimination, within the meaning and scope of human rights legislation.

[43]           In the analysis of whether negative comments rise to a level of harassment that adversely affects a person in their tenancy, the context is critical. Where conduct occurs during a single incident, or does not otherwise amount to a pattern of conduct, the Tribunal will consider all of the circumstances to determine whether it violates the Code: Hadzic v. Pizza Hut Canada  (c.o.b.Pizza Hut), [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 44 at paras. 32-33; Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71. Those circumstances include “the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against”: Pardoat para. 12.

*********

One of the cases listed here is an education case.

Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71

[12]           In my view, all the circumstances must be taken into account when considering whether a single comment could constitute a contravention of the Code.  Without suggesting that this is an exhaustive list, some of the relevant factors would be the egregiousness or virulence of the comment, the nature of the relationship between the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against. 

If you want to research whether you think your single comment would reach the level of discriminatory harassment that created a barrier, you can search for other cases on CanLii. Here are my instructions. I found many cases by entering “single comment” in the DOCUMENT TEXT field.

I highly suggest you research other decisions and see if your situation is similar to or different from the decisions you find. It will help you determine if going this path is worth it to you as a way to resolve this. Resolution often can take many paths, and filing an external complaint is just one of your options.

Hate Speech and Harassment

The tribunal went through a LONG analysis of what is hate speech with this very well-known decision that got a lot of media attention. The School Trustee had to pay &750,000.00 for his ongoing explosions of hate speech.

Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 10), 2026 BCHRT 49

[120]      The analysis of hate speech is driven by the dual harms it is intended to address: (1) the “grave psychological and social” harms experienced by individual members of the targeted group, and (2) the larger social harms caused by speech which “propagates, within social discourse, premises of inferiority that may gradually desensitize the majority and lay the groundwork for later, broad attacks”: Whatcottat paras. 73-74; Wardat para. 62. This second, social, harm is rooted in the recognition that “the end goal of hate speech is to shift the environment from one where harm against vulnerable groups is not tolerated to one where hate speech has created a place where this is either accepted or a blind eye is turned”: Whatcottat para. 131. This purpose-driven perspective must account for the specific context affecting the targeted group and the types of speech that, by drawing on pre-existing fears or stereotypes, is likely to expose that group to hatred or contempt.

[121]      A finding of hate speech is reserved for extreme and egregious examples of delegitimizing expression, whose harms “cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience”: Wardat para. 61; Whatcottat para. 46. Section 7(1)(b) of the Code does not protect against “hurt feelings, humiliation or offensiveness”: para. 47. It does not capture speech that is derogatory, false, or discrediting, or which ridicules, belittles or affronts the dignity of a group of people, including through the application of stereotype. Importantly for the purposes of this case, it does not capture speech which debates or speaks out “against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups”, unless the speech is made in a manner “which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects”: Whatcottat para. 145.

[122]      Hate speech exposes its targets to detestation and vilification. It includes “a component of looking down on or denying the worth of the other”: Whatcottat para. 43. Speech that exposes a target group to detestation tends “to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike”: Whatcottat para. 41. It seeks to “abuse, denigrate or delegitimize [the group], to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy, or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience”. Speech vilifying a group accuses “them of disgusting characteristics, inherent deficiencies or immoral propensities which are too vile in nature to be shared by the person who vilifies”: Whatcottat para. 43.

*********

For those who are wondering if filing a complaint over a single comment will be dismissed in a dismissal application, I highly suggest you speak to a lawyer.

Here is my lawyer referral list. Some are paid, and some are free.