Tribunal says HR officer's disclosure of driver's sexual orientation, plus comments new manager, significant, work-related stressors
Outing a gay employee to his new manager was not a minor HR misstep, a British Columbia tribunal has found, calling it a significant workplace stressor that revived the worker's mental disorder claim against his employer.
Vice-chair Chad McRae of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal ruled that the HR officer's disclosure of a truck driver and lead hand's sexual orientation, plus the comments his new manager made about his sexuality, were significant, work-related stressors under section 135 of the Workers Compensation Act.
McRae allowed the appeal, sent the claim back to WorkSafeBC, and ordered the board to reimburse the worker for one day of lost wages.
While HR may need to disclose a worker’s sexual orientation due to accommodation concerns or to administer a benefits plan, he said, “workers also need to be able to trust that such information is kept private and only disclosed and used as necessary."
Sexual orientation revealed at work
The worker, who is gay, had never made his sexual orientation widely known in what he called a male-dominated workplace, telling the tribunal it would "make things difficult" with coworkers. His partner also worked for the employer.
Only upper management and HR knew after the worker said his brother, then operations manager, had likely told a previous HR manager, found McRae.
That changed on Aug. 11, 2023, three days after a new operations manager, identified as "Y," started. The employer's accountant and HR officer, "X," the wife of one of the company's owners, revealed the worker's sexual orientation to Y.
McRae accepted the disclosure was inadvertent, and that X apologized afterward.
The information spread nevertheless. The worker testified that multiple coworkers approached or messaged him about his sexual orientation, with some apologizing for past comments they had made about gay men.
Where HR confidentiality meets section 135
Under section 135 of the Workers Compensation Act, a mental disorder is compensable only if it follows a traumatic event or is predominantly caused by a significant work-related stressor. WorkSafeBC and the Review Division had both denied the worker’s claim.
McRae disagreed in part, finding the disclosure and the manager's comments to be significant stressors though not traumatic events. The board must now decide whether the worker has a DSM-diagnosed disorder predominantly caused by them.
McRae found X's revealing the information to Y was "excessive in intensity from what is experienced in the normal pressures of employment to have a member of HR reveal personal information to one's immediate manager." He noted the same would apply if HR disclosed a worker's religious beliefs, family status, or medical conditions without a workplace reason such as accommodation.
McRae also found the new manager's conduct a significant stressor. The decision records that Y asked the worker if he had met his partner on a gay dating app, made sexual references to orgasms, suggested the worker's partner should drug him or vice versa, and made stereotype-based comments suggesting gay men were sexually promiscuous.
Targeting allegations rejected
The worker also alleged the employer targeted him after he filed a civil claim in January 2024, pointing to denied shifts, lost payroll-program access, miscalculated overtime, heavier trip assignments, and being asked to return the company vehicle, gas card, and credit card when he called in sick.
The employer said operational changes had followed a shift in its partnership structure. McRae found insufficient positive evidence of bad faith and ruled them excluded under section 135(1)(c). He applied the framework from the 2025 Pickering v. Workers' Compensation Board.
