Female resident didn't want male staff around during certain hours
A British Columbia group home didn’t discriminate against a male residential care worker when it restricted his shifts after a resident requested only female care workers, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
Terry Boyle was an on-call residential care worker for Future Focus Program Services, an agency providing care services for people with mental and physical disabilities. Boyle worked at a group home in Courtenay, B.C., that had one male and one female resident.
The female resident requested she only receive care from female attendants on Mondays and Thursdays, as on those days she had a bath. As a result, Boyle was not scheduled for shifts on those days. He also was not given overnight shifts because the resident was uncomfortable having a male in the house overnight. Future Focus explained these restrictions to Boyle when he started working at the home in November 2007 and he didn’t have any issues with them at the time.
In July 2008, the male resident moved out of the home. Eventually, in April 2009, another female resident moved in. The new resident had a history of sexual trauma, so she could only receive care from female care workers. Future Focus told Boyle and the one other male care worker they could work additional hours at another facility 50 km away. Boyle refused and decided to pick up whatever hours were available in Courtenay. He also asked if he could speak to the new resident’s family but Future Focus told him he could be fired if he tried to contact her family.
Boyle claimed the older female resident had disrobed in front of male workers and didn’t think there was a problem with male workers being in the home while she bathed. He also said the male resident received care from workers of both sexes and filed a complaint alleging discrimination in his employment based on his sex.
The tribunal found differential treatment alone was not necessarily a basis for discrimination and pointed out precedents had established that it may be necessary. It said discrimination had been established as occurring when “people are marginalized or treated as less worthy on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics, without regard to their actual circumstances.” Boyle didn’t argue male care workers suffered from a “pre-existing disadvantage” and didn’t claim any injury to his dignity. However, if Future Focus had failed to heed the female residents’ requests for female-only care, the dignity of the residents would have been affected.
The tribunal also found Future Focus implemented limitations on male care workers in good faith, for a purpose rationally connected to the job and necessary to the organization’s purpose. As a result, the limitation was a bona fide occupational requirement and the tribunal dismissed Boyle’s complaint.
“(Boyle) does not appear to appreciate (the older female resident’s) inherent right to be treated with dignity, regardless of her behaviour on certain occasions,” said the tribunal. “Similarly, he apparently fails to appreciate how inappropriate it would have been for him to discuss his concerns with the family of the woman with a history of sexual trauma.”
For more information see:
