Worker wanted to return to old role, but no hours were available
The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a worker’s complaint that gender was a factor in the termination of her employment after she declined a new position that she had previously accepted during the pandemic.
The worker was a teacher in Edmonton for the Sarah McLachlan School of Music, a Vancouver-based not-for-profit society that provides music education for at-risk and underserved children. She was hired in 2017 on a one-year, fixed-term contract. Each summer, a new one-year contract was negotiated for the upcoming academic year.
The worker had good performance reviews with no issues on her work record.
The school’s operations were significantly affected when the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in March 2020, as in-person music lessons were limited. The school tried to ensure all of its staff continued to be paid, but in the summer of 2020, the Edmonton location lost its teaching space and had to relocate to a smaller facility.
New position
The school had about one-third of its usual enrollment for the fall of 2020, so it discussed re-employment with its staff. It offered the worker a part-time, salaried position as student services co-ordinator, which the worker accepted after receiving the written employment contract. She and started working in the role in September.
The worker was concerned about the availability of teaching hours, so the school provided a revised written contract for the position of student services co-ordinator/teaching artist on Oct. 8, which adjusted the salary and referenced teaching hours. However, the worker wasn’t happy with the position, as she felt it wouldn’t provide her with professional merit. On Oct. 15, she declined the offered position.
The worker asked about returning to her teaching role, but the school said her former job wasn’t available and it had structured the fall program on the basis of the worker accepting the student services co-ordinator position. As a result, all of the teaching hours had been allotted to other teachers and it couldn’t offer any hours to the worker until enrollment numbers increased.
The interim executive director asked the worker to prepare a draft alternative job proposal and the worker prepared one for the role of community engagement and admissions co-ordinator. The executive director said it “looked good” and suggested some changes, saying they were about to finalize it. However, on Oct. 29 she told the worker she couldn’t offer the alternative position, as the board wouldn’t approve it, and urged her to return to the position the school had available for her, as she wanted the worker to stay with the school.
Discrimination complaint
On Oct. 29, 2021, the worker filed a human rights complaint alleging that the school discriminated against her on the basis of gender when it terminated her employment, contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act. She also alleged other incidents of gender based, discrimination, including the revised job offer on Oct. 8, which was entry level and lower pay, while a newly hired male employee was given her teaching job. She also claimed that her manager used a phrase that “sounds very sexual”, intentionally mispronounced her name, gave her sole responsibility for administrative work, and used language such as “hey guys and girl.” These all made her feel uncomfortable, the worker said.
The tribunal referred to the three-part test for prima facie discrimination – the worker had a protected characteristic under the act, she experienced an adverse impact, and her protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.
The tribunal acknowledged that the worker was female and had the protected characteristic of gender. However, the termination of her employment was the only adverse impact that fell within the one-year limitation period for filing a complaint. Allegations regarding earlier incidents, including those related to workplace environment and alleged discriminatory treatment, were considered solely as context.
The tribunal found that the worker initially accepted the student services co-ordinator and a revised offer was extended on Oct. 8, 2020, which included teaching responsibilities. The worker ultimately declined this offer and proposed an alternative role. Although the school considered this proposal, it was later deemed not viable due to business considerations.
The tribunal accepted that the executive director kept an open mind about the proposed position, but the school’s program was limited during a period of decreased enrolment and operational challenges due to the pandemic. Management indicated that it wanted the complainant to return to the previously offered position and expressed willingness to explore future opportunities should enrolment increase, said the tribunal.
Non-discriminatory reasons
The tribunal found no evidence that the worker’s gender played a role in the school’s decision-making. The lack of teaching hours for the worker was due to prior commitments made to other teachers and the limited hours available, and the worker’s former teaching role was no longer available by the time she declined the offered position, the tribunal said.
As for the worker’s additional allegations of discriminatory conduct by the worker’s manager, they fell outside the one-year limitation period set out in the act, said the tribunal. In addition, the tribunal found that none of these incidents could be linked to the termination of the worker’s employment.
The tribunal determined that the worker’s termination wasn’t related to her protected ground of gender and dismissed the application.
See Miciak v. Sarah McLachlan School of Music, 2025 AHRC 49.
