Sexual harassment of subordinate at party, subsequent denial gave employer sufficient cause to dismiss 22-year employee
A British Columbia hotel executive who went a little too far in celebrating at an employee holiday party found himself the target of a sexual harassment complaint and, ultimately, out of a job. Despite his claim of wrongful dismissal, the B.C. Supreme Court found no reason why the hotel shouldn’t have fired him.
Stan van Woerkens, 49, was the director of sales and marketing at the Renaissance Vancouver Hotel Harbourside and had been employed with Marriot Hotels since 1985. He generally received positive evaluations of his job performance, except for a recommendation in 2001 he should be careful to control his temper when dealing with other employees. This recommendation was not disciplinary and van Woerkens’ employment record with Marriot remained discipline-free.
On Dec. 10, 2006, Marriot held a holiday party for employees at the Renaissance. The party included a champagne reception followed by a buffet dinner and dance, which was expected to last until midnight. The acting general manager and van Woerkens were the hosts and masters of ceremonies and responsible for supervising the party. The two also had to monitor alcohol consumption and give out one complimentary drink ticket to each guest. Additional alcohol was available at a cash bar.
During the party, van Woerkens and the general manager arranged to have several bottles of wine brought to their table. A “moderate to high” amount of alcohol was consumed over the course of the evening.
A young woman who was an assistant restaurant manager — and worked for the acting general manager — also sat at their table and drank the wine. Van Woerkens claimed this employee invited him back to her room at another Marriott hotel nearby but he ignored her.
After dinner, a group of people danced on the dance floor, including van Woerkens and the general manager. Some observers said the female employee was flirting and dancing suggestively with the executives, but it wasn’t seen as anything unusual for such a party. All were observed as acting intoxicated.
Towards the end of the party, a few employees went to an employee’s room for an after-party. After ensuring the main party had ended and everything was in order, van Woerkens went to the after-party where he grabbed a beer from the bathroom sink.
He said he didn’t have any interaction with the female employee from earlier, who was at the after-party. He acknowledged she may have been in the bathroom getting some water but said he didn’t spend any time with her there.
The employee claimed the general manager had been with her in the elevator and acted inappropriately, which unsettled her and she needed a drink of water from the bathroom when she arrived at the after-party. While in there, van Woerkens came in, closed the door, pushed her against the counter and proceeded to kiss and touch her inappropriately, she said. When someone opened the door, she got up and left, she said.
Other guests said they saw van Woerkens in the bathroom with the employee with his arms around her waist. A short time later, the employee was seen leaving the bathroom and adjusting her clothes.
Van Woerkens went back to the Renaissance before going home, where he called the employee’s room, which he claimed he did to make sure she made it back safely.
The next morning, van Woerkens ran into the employee in the hotel restaurant. He put his arm around her, asked how she was, and asked her if she still had her room. He then said the next time she rented a room, she should let him know and laughed.
Complaint filed after subsequent events
The employee became concerned about what happened at the party between her and both van Woerkens and the general manager. The general manager apologized for his actions but van Woerkens didn’t respond to her request for a meeting. However, on Jan. 5, 2007, van Woerkens called her from a bar and asked her when she wanted to do “our special meeting.” The employee decided to file a sexual harassment complaint against him.
Marriott launched an investigation, during which van Woerkens denied any misconduct. He maintained the employee made several overtures to him the night of the party, but he spurned all of them. He denied kissing or touching her.
Armed with the reports of other partygoers that van Woerkens had been involved in inappropriate physical contact with the employee, Marriott decided he had demonstrated a serious lack of judgment and misconduct. He had also acted contrary to the company’s non-harassment policies and guidelines for leaders. On Jan. 18, 2007, Marriott fired him.
Continuing to deny any wrongdoing, van Woerkens sued for wrongful dismissal.
Van Woerkens’ denials rang hollow, considering the evidence from eyewitnesses, found the court. His calling the employee’s room was likely for more than just checking on her, since he didn’t do that for any other employees at the party, said the court. His Jan. 5 call also supported the idea he was looking for an opportunity for a sexual encounter, and the fact the employee immediately reported it gave her claims legitimacy. Van Woerkens’ behaviour on the dance floor and his drinking at the party weren’t enough for dismissal, but his subsequent sexual harassment of the employee was, found the court.
Though Marriott fired van Woerkens abruptly without giving him an opportunity to give his side of the story, it was still entitled to terminate him because of the seriousness of his misconduct and his failure to admit to it, said the court. In 2004, he had signed a condition of employment that stated he may be discharged without warning if he harassed any employees.
“From the time of the interview through the conclusion of the trial, Mr. van Woerkens has maintained his position that he did not engage in any form of sexual touching or contact with (the employee), despite the evidence to the contrary,” said the court.
“Furthermore, as a senior manager (he) had positive duties to protect members of the workforce from offensive conduct and to protect his employer from exposure to civil claims.”
With the sexual harassment and his dishonesty during the investigation, van Woerkens breached the trust needed in his employment relationship, giving Marriott just cause for dismissal, found the court.
For more information see:
•Van Woerkens v. Marriott Hotels of Canada Ltd., 2009 CarswellBC 195 (B.C. S.C.).
Jeffrey R. Smith is editor of Canadian Employment Law Today, a publication that looks at workplace law from a business perspective. For more information, visit employmentlawtoday.com.
