Three New CHRT Decisions Released

[Mechanic787]

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released three decisions today, all of them by the same panel Chair (not the same Chair who heard the age discrimination cases), and all of them dealing with alleged family status discrimination by female workers whose employment was terminated by Canadian National Railways.

CHRT Case Index Page: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/NS/decisions/ind ... ilter=year

Richards v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1356_8608de.pdf

Seely v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1355_8508de.pdf

White v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1354_8408de.pdf

Although none of these decisions dealt with age discrimination, several of the included factors in the age discrimination cases before the Tribunal, such as reinstatement, seniority accrual, damages, and special compensation, were dealt with by the Tribunal in these cases.

The decisions may give us some insight into the pending ACPA / Air Canada decisions regarding those included issues. In a nutshell, these awards all include reinstatement, full back pay, full seniority credit, plus the maximum ($20,000) or near the maximum sums awarded for each of pain and suffering and willful and reckless disregard for the three individuals' rights under the Act (i.e. $40,000 for each complainant).

In the one case where there was no evidence that the complainant mitigated her damages at all over the relevant period (2007 to today) the Tribunal discounted the full pay and benefits by only 30%.

The Tribunal also awarded interest and expenses, but not legal costs.

[Inverted2]

Holy! AC might have to pay out some serious $$$. Bankrupt in 3...2...1....

[PilotFlying]

... pain and suffering ...

Seriously?

[Mechanic787]

... pain and suffering ...

Seriously?

I am by no means passing judgment on the decisions. I am simply saying that these awards are generally indicative of the Tribunal's jurisprudence on the subject, and that there are obvious implications for similar cases yet to be decided:

[245] Although no medical evidence was produced to, the Tribunal concludes that CN’s conduct and nonchalant attitude towards her situations was disturbing for the Complainant. Taking this into consideration, the Tribunal orders CN to pay to the Complainant $15,000 in compensation for her pain and suffering.