Tribunal finds employer responsive to complaints, 'promptly' doing investigations
An Alberta employee who resigned the day before her scheduled return-to-work meeting has had her human rights complaint dismissed for refusing a fair and reasonable settlement.
The worker had alleged that Versa Power Systems, operating as FuelCell Energy, discriminated against her on the grounds of ancestry, colour, gender, mental disability, physical disability, place of origin and race.
Commission Member Shawn Leclerc upheld the dismissal in a decision dated March 13, 2026.
Workplace injury and resignation
The worker began working for Versa Power Systems on Jan. 31, 2022. On March 28, she suffered a neck and shoulder injury in the workplace that made her duties difficult to complete. She also alleged mental distress, differential treatment and sexual harassment by her supervisor.
She was off sick from Sept. 12 to 14, 2022. On Sept. 15, she emailed her resignation effective Sept. 16, the date scheduled for a return-to-work meeting with the respondent. Her complaint was filed on Sept. 22, 2022.
Her written employment agreement included a termination clause limiting notice or pay in lieu to the statutory minimum of one week under the Employment Standards Code. She could resign on two weeks' written notice; the respondent could waive that requirement and provide pay in lieu.
Employer responsive to complaints
The worker alleged failure to accommodate her physical and mental disabilities, sexual harassment, failure to substantiate that complaint, being passed over for two promotions, having a work task reassigned and being put down by a colleague reviewing her work without proper support or guidance. She alleged the discrimination, sexual harassment and "poisoned work environment" created by her supervisors forced her to resign.
Leclerc found the employer was responsive to the complaints in investigating sexual harassment and workplace injury complaints “promptly." The investigation, Leclerc found, "took the complainant's allegations seriously."
On accommodation, the decision stated that "the respondent continuously responded to the complainant's requests for accommodation." On damages, the decision noted that higher awards "typically involve egregious conduct and a failure of the respondent to investigate reports."
‘Reasonable’ settlement offer
The respondent made at least two attempts to resolve the matter before putting forward a with-prejudice offer: $15,000 in general damages, a letter of employment and a letter on a non-admission basis acknowledging that the worker felt she had experienced adverse effects in respect of the accommodation process, in exchange for a release in the employer's favour.
Leclerc cited comparable decisions. In Mandziak v Taste of Tuscany Ltd., the tribunal awarded $15,000 in a sexual harassment case. In Pham v Vu's Enterprises Ltd., the tribunal awarded $15,000 where the respondent repeatedly accosted the complainant with unwelcome actions. In Dogan v Suncor Energy Inc. and Transfield Integrated Asset Management Services (Alberta) Ltd., the chief found $15,000 was fair and reasonable where the complainant alleged discrimination on the grounds of ancestry, place of origin, race, colour and mental disability.
While the worker refused the settlement, Leclerc determined the offer was "within a reasonable range of the amount that may have been awarded had the complaint received a full hearing by the tribunal." The record central to this outcome included timely investigations, continuous accommodation responses and a settlement acknowledging the complainant's experience without admission of liability.
