Employee complained of harassment and failure to accommodate but employer made efforts to resolve problems
A British Columbia government employer did not discriminate against a disabled employee when it changed her job duties and wasn’t able to resolve a harassment complaint, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
Jana Pirsel was a regional program co-ordinator for the mental health and addictions department of the Northern Health Authority (NHA), a public health provider in B.C. Pirsel supervised a program case manager, with whom she developed a friendship.
In February 2008, the case manager became a full-time employee after two years working part-time. Pirsel felt at that point, the case manager’s behaviour became more negative and expressed her concern about it to her supervisor. Two months later, the case manager complained she was being harassed by Pirsel. Despite attempts to resolve the situation, things got worse and Pirsel went on medical leave on July 2, 2008, feeling that she herself was being harassed.
The NHA recommended the employees see a staff development consultant for an investigation. The consultant determined a toxic relationship had developed between the employees due to a breaking down of their friendship. However, the consultant found the case manager had not harassed Pirsel.
The NHA also discovered it was paying Pirsel, despite the fact she was on medical leave and had applied for long-term disability, due to a payroll error. The NHA asked her to repay the amount it had overpaid her, but Pirsel refused because it was the employer’s error.
A reorganization of the department led to the discovery that Pirsel should not have been supervising anyone according to her job description. The NHA revised her job description, which was accepted by the union.
On Jan. 13, 2009, the NHA presented Pirsel with a return-to-work proposal which stated she wouldn’t have any supervisory duties, her office would move, her pay grade would be reduced, she would be required to pay the overpayment and her new duties would include driving long distances in winter. Pirsel rejected the proposal, saying it was inappropriate accommodation.
The next month, Pirsel received another proposal, which kept her at the same pay grade but earmarked one-half of her outstanding vacation pay for her overpayment and required her to agree to not file a legal action.
Pirsel rejected the second proposal and filed a human rights complaint, claiming the NHA discriminated against her by allowing the harassment, not accommodating her disabilities (in addition to suffering from stress, Pirsel was medically classified as a dwarf) and implementing the changes to her duties.
The tribunal found the NHA took steps to resolve the issues between Pirsel and the case manager, but had to deal with harassment complaints from both. The investigation and return-to-work plan were appropriate attempts at accommodation and though Pirsel felt the case manager’s attitude was related to her height, the tribunal found nothing to show a link.
The tribunal also found Pirsel didn’t advise the NHA of any accommodations she required, so the employer didn’t have any reason to think she couldn’t perform the new duties. The reorganization had involved several months of planning and other employees had their duties changed as well, said the tribunal.
