Complaints over unfair job classification, wages and retaliation resulted in 19-year legal battle
An Alberta woman has been awarded $650,000 for discrimination she suffered under the province’s equal pay legislation. But it’s much less than she’d been hoping for after a 19-year legal battle between her and her former employer.
Delorie Walsh, 53, was hired by Alberta oil company Canadian Superior Oil in September 1984 as a junior map clerk. She had her sights set on becoming the first female land agent for the company and wanted to get relevant experience. Over the next two years, two land agent positions became available but in each case, a man who had been with the company for less time than her was hired.
Resistance to employee’s aspirations
In April 1986, Canadian Superior merged with Mobil Oil Canada and Walsh was put in a similar job. A few months later, she told her supervisor of her aspirations but, according to Walsh, he said no woman would be given the job.
In 1987, Walsh received an interim land agent licence and took over the duties of an agent who retired. She was officially promoted to a junior land agent position in April 1988 and a higher position in May 1989 after receiving a permanent licence. However, she felt she was being paid less than men in similar positions. Though she regularly received good performance ratings, her salary remained near the bottom of the range for her position.
In December 1990, Mobil offered Walsh a land representative job in a new location. Though the job involved a commute from where she lived, she wasn’t offered a company vehicle nor a change in pay. There were also conditions placed on the offer, including a three-month probation period. Walsh felt a man wouldn’t be given these conditions but her supervisor said women were “handicapped in the field.”
Walsh took the new job but complained to the company of sexual discrimination. She received a salary increase to take her to the minimum in her new salary group. On Aug. 14, 1991, she filed a formal complaint against Mobil, claiming she was paid less than male employees doing similar work and was being held back. She also said there was a negative attitude towards women in the company.
In April 1992, Mobil restructured and Walsh took a job as a land representative for central Alberta. There was no change in her salary and she believed two of her male colleagues were given different classifications, though they performed comparable jobs.
In early 1994, Walsh was in a car accident while on the job. There were lingering injuries, but she continued to work and only took time off for physiotherapy.
Over the course of 1994, Walsh’s supervisor raised concerns over her performance. Walsh felt he was keeping close tabs on her as a form of retaliation for her human rights complaint. She was asked to formulate an action plan to address her issues but she was skeptical of the company’s motivations and her supervisor’s ability to evaluate her.
Second complaint filed after firing
On Feb. 21, 1995, after several months of resistance to the action plan, Walsh was fired for cause. The same day, she learned her human rights complaint had been dismissed. On Aug. 15, Walsh filed a second complaint alleging Mobil fired her as retaliation for her first complaint.
The Alberta Human Rights Panel found before her first complaint, Walsh had no performance issues and her experience should have qualified her for a higher salary and job category and male peers were given better positions. It found Mobil discriminated against Walsh based on her gender.
However, the panel found Mobil had been warning Walsh of her need to improve her performance for some time before her termination. It found she was resistant to those warnings because of the treatment she felt she was getting and her health issues from the car accident coloured her perception of Mobil’s motivations. As a result, the panel found Walsh’s dismissal was not retaliation.
Walsh appealed and on May 11, 2007, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found her dismissal was retaliation for her first complaint. However, the marathon case wasn’t over as Mobil appealed. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on the discrimination and retaliation in 2008, sending the case back to the human rights tribunal to determine remedies.
“Common sense” needed after lengthy legal battle: Tribunal
After another two years, the tribunal reached a decision on Sept. 2. Addressing the fact it took nearly two decades to get to this point, the tribunal found neither party could be faulted for the delay. A combination of Walsh’s medical issues and both parties exercising their legal rights through appeals contributed to the length of time, said the tribunal.
Given the length of time involved, the tribunal expressed the need for “common sense and reasonableness” to limit liability. Though Walsh claimed ongoing stress from the discrimination affected her ability to work and wanted compensation for lost income in the past and future up to age 60 — more than $4 million — the tribunal found other factors, including physical ailments from her accident and an addiction to pain medication eliminated any causal link between the discrimination and Walsh’s problems after December 2000. The tribunal ordered Mobil to pay Walsh lost income from 1989 to 2000 — the difference in her actual salary and what it should have been up to her termination and her full salary and benefits for five years after her termination.
