Human rights and duties
I was denied a job or saw a discriminatory employment ad
Page contents
- Overview
- Miu v. Lanart Aluminum and Tam, 2006 BCHRT 219 ($2,500)
- Khalil v. Woori Education Group, 2012 BCHRT 186 ($3,000)
- Winkelmeyer v. Woodlands Inn and Suites, 2012 BCHRT 312 ($5,000)
- Morrison v. AdvoCare and others, 2009 BCHRT 298 ($5,000)
- Paquette v. Amaruk Wilderness and another (No. 4), 2016 BCHRT 35 ($8,500)
Overview
These case summaries show examples of the awards the Tribunal has made when a person has suffered injury to their dignity and self-respect because of discrimination. The summaries also show what other awards were made, like compensation for lost wages or other expenses.
Miu v. Lanart Aluminum and Tam, 2006 BCHRT 219 ($2,500)
Area: Employment ad
Grounds: Age
Discrimination: Discriminatory employment ad
The discrimination: The employer posted an ad looking for a “young apprentice”. Mr. Miu was 40 years old. He called to ask what the employer meant by “young” and was told it was between 20-30 years old. The reason was because the job required heavy lifting. The employer told Mr. Miu he would not be qualified because he was older than 30.
Vulnerability: None identified.
Effect: The age restriction made Mr. Miu feel useless and incompetent. He felt like he was too old to learn a new trade, and felt discouraged from looking for jobs.
Khalil v. Woori Education Group, 2012 BCHRT 186 ($3,000)
Area: Employment
Grounds: Physical disability (blind)
Discrimination: Denied an employment interview
The discrimination: Mr. Khalil responded to an online job ad. He believed he had all of the qualifications. He spoke to the employer on the phone. The conversation went well. The employer invited him to the office for an interview. Mr. Khalil told the employer he was blind. The employer cancelled the interview.
Vulnerability: Mr. Khalil was vulnerable because he was unemployed and had a disability.
Effect: Mr. Khalil said he had bouts of depression. The Tribunal said the discrimination did not cause all of the depression.
Winkelmeyer v. Woodlands Inn and Suites, 2012 BCHRT 312 ($5,000)
Area: Employment
Grounds: Physical disability (cerebral palsy)
Discrimination: Denied an employment interview
The discrimination: Mr. Winkelmeyer had cerebral palsy. He applied to work at an inn. He spoke to the executive housekeeper. He told her he needed to use a cane. She was concerned that he would not be able to do the job. She said she would call him back. She did not contact him. Mr. Winkelmeyer’s disability was the reason he was not contacted for an interview.
Vulnerability: Mr. Winkelmeyer was young. Because of his disability, he had to repeatedly deal with obstacles and stereotypes.
Effect: Mr. Winkelmeyer was emotional in the hearing. The discrimination has a serious effect on him.
Morrison v. AdvoCare and others, 2009 BCHRT 298 ($5,000)
Area: Employment
Grounds: Sex (male)
Discrimination: Refusal to hire
The discrimination: Mr. Morrison was a certified care aid. He applied two times for a job with AdvoCare. AdvoCare did not hire him. Instead, it hired women no better qualified than he was. It continued to recruit care aids. The woman who interviewed Mr. Morrison felt uncomfortable with him. She acted based on stereotypes about men. The treatment was demeaning.
Vulnerability: None identified.
Effect: Mr. Morrison had worked hard to get his care aid certification. He was devastated by AdvoCare’s dismissal of him as a person not worthy of a care aid position. His indignity was made worse because AdvoCare would not give any reasons for why he was not hired.
Paquette v. Amaruk Wilderness and another (No. 4), 2016 BCHRT 35 ($8,500)
Area: Employment
Grounds: Religion
Discrimination: Harassed and denied an internship
The discrimination: Ms. Paquette was Christian. She got her degree from a Christian university. She applied for an internship. A senior person in the company emailed her to say that she was not qualified and that the company management saw Christianity as having destroyed the Norse way of life. After that, managers aggressively emailed back and forth with her about the destructiveness of Christianity. The emails were sent over four days. They were egregious religious harassment. Her religion was a factor in why she did not get the internship.
Vulnerability: At the time, Ms. Paquette was fragile. Her religious convictions were recent.
Effect: Ms. Paquette felt ashamed about who she was. She felt she had to hide her religious beliefs. She was deeply affected.