News anchor cancelled for harassing multiple colleagues

Background

When workplace sexual harassment happens, it’s often where there’s a power imbalance between the two people. In such circumstances, the subject of the harassment feels they can’t come forward or take measures to stop the harassment. A harasser who has power or seniority can dismiss inappropriate conduct as joking, but the consequences can be more damaging for the victim.

A federal adjudicator has upheld the firing of a CTV news anchor for sexually harassing multiple female colleagues over several years.

The worker was originally hired by CTV network as a news reporter in 1995, moving to Toronto five years later to become a news anchor and reporter. In 2015, the worker became a weekend news anchor for CTV News Channel, working evenings from Saturday to Wednesday.

CTV had a code of business conduct that prohibited “all types of unlawful discrimination, including harassment, whether directed against an individual or group.” The code also defined harassment as “vexatious behaviour that is repetitive and hostile or unwanted that degrades, humiliates, embarrasses, affects or insults an employee’s dignity or integrity and results in a harmful work environment for the employee.” It included examples and was in line with the legislative definition.

Bell Media, the company that owns CTV, also had a policy on workplace violence and harassment prevention that stated the company had a zero-tolerance policy and “workplace violence or harassment of any kind is not tolerated and may result in disciplinary measure up to and including dismissal.”

In May 2013, CTV received a complaint that he had made inappropriate comments to female colleagues, including remarks about their physical appearance. The worker admitted to making the comments but said that he didn’t think they impacted his colleagues negatively. CTV gave him a written warning that said such behaviour was inappropriate and that if he failed to conduct himself professionally and with good judgment, there would be “further progressive discipline up to and including termination of your employment.”

Around the same time, the president of CTV News told the worker that “if you do this again, I will fire you.”

Two formal harassment complaints

In December 2017, CTV received a formal complaint from a female employee alleging the worker had harassed her over a period of time. This was followed by another formal complaint from a second female employee in January 2018.

The first complainant had been with Bell Media since 2012, starting as an intern and working her way up to the role of lineup editor and writer. She said that when she started, a female colleague warned her that the worker would likely send her inappropriate emails. Before long, the worker did start sending her emails, first praising her work and then moving on to her appearance. This evolved to private messages on Facebook that included comments about how lucky her boyfriend was and that she was
“gorgeous.” She felt uncomfortable about the messages, but she didn’t know how to respond as she was young and new.

The messages decreased after April 2013 when the worker received the written warning. The complainant also no longer worked the evening shift with the worker, so they had less interaction. However, in 2016, the messages started up again.

The worker eventually invited her for a cup of coffee and sometimes offered her a ride home along with more comments, which she deflected. She started feeling anxiety and stress, particularly when he said he had brought her favourite beer into work for her as a reward — he mentioned that he saw her holding the beer in a Facebook photo. She later checked and saw that friends had posted two photos of her holding a bottle of beer at a lake while she was wearing a bikini. She blocked the worker from seeing any photos she posted on Facebook after that.

In April 2017, some members of the news team were discussing breaking news and texting the show’s director at 1 a.m. A comment was made about a “booty call” and the worker asked what that meant. Shortly after it was explained to him, he emailed the complainant asking, “Hey u still up gurl?” She didn’t respond and he sent her a second message. The worker continued to send her messages referencing her appearance. She didn’t overtly tell him to stop, but she thought her deflection or lack of response sometimes would make it clear that the messages were unwanted.

The second complainant had started as a freelance writer in July 2014, working evening shifts with the worker. She said that the worker initially treated her well but soon started making personal comments that made her uncomfortable, including about her looks and her clothes and calling her pet names. The comments were sometimes made verbally and sometimes in writing, by email, or in private Facebook messages.

The complainant felt “creeped out” and that the worker was trying to take advantage of his senior status while she was just starting out. She initially tried to ignore the comments, but the worker continued making them so she “unfriended” him on Facebook. She then apologized to him for doing so and explained that the frequency and intensity of the messages was too much and “just wasn’t OK.”

Things toned down for a while, but soon he began emailing her about how attractive she was. She “refriended” him on Facebook, and he resumed sending her messages on that platform. On one occasion, the worker suggested that he had a close relationship with and easy access to the president of CTV News, which wasn’t the case. This made the second complainant feel that the worker had influence in the newsroom and could impact her career.

Both complainants indicated that the rise of the “MeToo” movement and stories of brave women coming forward about harassment inspired them to do something about the worker’s conduct. The first complainant also said she knew that other women had received inappropriate messages from the worker and she felt a responsibility to junior employees who might not feel they could speak out.

Others subjected to harassment

A senior HR consultant with Bell Media investigated the complaints and interviewed the worker, the two complainants and two other women who hadn’t filed formal complaints but said the worker had made comments to them as well. One of the other women was a production assistant and assistant director, first freelance and then as a full-time employee. She often worked with the worker on CTV News Channel and CTV National News and she told the investigator that from late 2013 to 2018 the worker had sent her emails, Facebook messages and Instagram messages referring to her appearance and calling her “bella” and “princess” that she felt were appropriate. She said she rarely responded to them and they made her feel uncomfortable and overwhelmed. At one point, she told the worker that her boyfriend didn’t appreciate him sending her the messages and he apologized, saying he was “just a smitten jerk.” After the complaints were filed against the worker, he sent the production assistant a message apologizing for making her feel uncomfortable at work, to which she responded with a lengthy message explaining how the numerous comments over time were annoying and asking him not to message her about her appearance anymore.

The second non-complainant interviewed had worked with the worker in 2010 until she left in 2012. She returned in 2013 as a producer. She told the investigator that in 2011 she started exchanging “flirtatious and suggestive” Facebook messages and emails that led to a relationship she described as “sexual in the digital sphere.” This continued until 2015, when things “fizzled out” after one encounter at her condominium. They ended up working together in 2017, when she made a joke that the worker interpreted as racist. He reported it to her supervisor and she apologized, but the worker didn’t accept the apology and their work relationship deteriorated. Eventually, she was moved to produce the news show on nights when the worker didn’t work and the afternoon news show once per week. She said she decided to reach out to management after hearing some of her female colleagues discussing the worker’s messages.

The worker suggested that the producer who had made the racist joke prompted the two complainants — who were friends with the producer — to file their complaints as part of a “plot to get back at him.” He acknowledged that many of the messages he had sent to the women referenced their appearance and conceded that they were contrary to the 2013 written warning “on a strict reading,” but he said he should still be able to talk or joke with his friends. He insisted that his comments were friendly compliments and that he didn’t think his job should be in jeopardy for “interacting with his friends or complimenting a Facebook friend.”

The worker added that he stopped working with the second complainant after November 2015 and that there was no reason for her to have waited two years to file a complaint about comments he had made years earlier, other than to retaliate against him for the complaint he had made about the producer.

The women provided several examples of the messages the worker had sent to them and they advised that other female colleagues had similar experiences with the worker, so the senior HR consultant determined that the worker had committed “harassment with sexual undertones” and that he breached the code of business conduct and the workplace violence and harassment prevention policy. In addition, his attitude and repeat behaviour made him a high risk to continue his misconduct and retaliate against the complainants, the consultant concluded.

Bell Media accepted the investigation’s findings and decided to terminate the worker’s employment on March 24, 2018, for harassing women in the workplace repeatedly since receiving the written warning. In addition, the company said that his failure to acknowledge or take responsibility for his actions was an aggravating factor in the decision to fire him.

The worker filed an unjust dismissal complaint claiming that his actions were not harassment and there was no cause for dismissal.

The adjudicator found that the worker’s actions met the definition of harassment in Bell Media’s code of conduct and harassment policy, as one of the examples given in the policies was “commenting on someone’s sexual attractiveness or unattractiveness.” In addition, many of the comments the worker made were “disrespectful to his colleagues, unwanted and repetitive” and deserved serious discipline, the adjudicator said.

The adjudicator noted that the worker received a written warning about such behaviour in 2013 and he was also told by the president of CTV News that she would fire him if he did it again. There should have been no doubt to the worker that continuing to send inappropriate messages to female colleagues would have serious consequences, said the adjudicator.

The adjudicator also found that there was an “inherent power imbalance” as the worker was a senior, prominent member of the news team and the women to whom he made the comments were relatively young and new to the company.

“While [the worker] suggested that his comments were merely friendly compliments or harmless jokes, I note that none of the women he engaged with in this way were close to his age or enjoyed the same professional status that he did,” the adjudicator said. “The result of this inequity was that the women had to choose between living with the discomfort of receiving incessant, unwanted compliments and flirtations, or confronting someone with the power to affect their career prospects.”

The adjudicator accepted that the complaint he made against the producer may have played a role in the complaints against him being filed but also accepted the first complainant’s evidence that it was a “wakeup” call to approach HR because of something she perceived to be wrong.

The adjudicator expressed concerns that the HR consultant didn’t investigate the worker’s claim of a plot against him more thoroughly and didn’t provide information about the two non-complainants she interviewed to the worker, which was a breach of procedural fairness. However, the thoroughness of the investigation of the formal complainants and the overwhelming evidence of the worker’s misconduct were enough to support just cause for termination, the adjudicator said in upholding the termination.

For more information, see:

• Laurie and Bell Media, Re, 2020 CarswellNat 5204 (Can. Lab. Code Adj.).