Worker had no proof publicly posting offensive videos part of his religion
A worker who was fired for posting “deeply intolerant and discriminatory” videos online was unable to show that he was discriminated against based on his religious beliefs, the BC Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
Fraser International College (FIC) is a private educational business that operates on the campus of Simon Fraser University, providing international students the opportunity to enter the university’s undergraduate programs through its own pathways programs. The worker was an academic sessional instructor in FIC’s math department starting in 2017.
The worker entered into an employment agreement with FIC prior to each academic semester. For the 2019 fall semester, the agreement stated that “the job requirements and regulations contained in the academic staff pack form an integral part of your employment contract.” The staff pack included a policy on workplace harassment that said he was expected to behave in a manner that did not intimidate or be offensive to the community and harassment under the policy would lead to termination of employment.
The staff pack also had a policy dealing with termination of employment, which stated that FIC had the right to summarily dismiss an employee for “serious breaches of professional conduct,” as well as a student code of conduct that stipulated that “discrimination or harassment of staff or students, by any member of the teaching and learning environment, is unacceptable and contrary to the core education and employment values that FIC upholds.”
Online videos contrary to harassment policies
Around the end of November 2019, an anonymous person emailed the FIC’s director about videos that the worker had posted on YouTube. One video featured the worker saying that laws should be passed putting women who have abortions and doctors who perform them to death along with other controversial opinions on rape. In a second video, the worker stated that homosexuality was against nature and people who think they are transgender should be put in an asylum.
The worker also posted a video in which he called Sikhism, Sunni Islam, Catholicism, and Kabbalah “false religions” and their gods “the anti-Christ or Satan,” as well as other derogatory comments about other religions. In total, there were seven videos posted.
The director met with the worker on Dec. 9 and told him that the YouTube videos contained content that went against FIC’s policies and the college would investigate. The worker asked, “So my religious views are not tolerated?” and the director replied that FIC would investigate any impact on the students, as some of his religious views could cause concerns for students.
The worker was placed on administrative suspension but was paid for the rest of the semester.
Termination of employment
The worker had already signed an employment agreement for the following semester, but on Dec. 20, FIC emailed him terminating his employment for breaching its policies.
The worker filed a human rights complaint alleging that FIC discriminated against him in employment on the basis of religion, as the videos he posted were of him preaching his Christian religious views. He said that he expressed his opinions within the context of a sermon based on a belief from religious texts including the King James Bible.
FIC applied to have the complaint dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect for it to succeed and it would not further the purposes of the BC Human Rights Code to proceed with it. It argued that, although the worker said he was a Christian, he had not provided any evidence showing that producing and publicly posting videos expressing “homophobic/transphobic, misogynistic, and other deeply intolerant and discriminatory views” were related to the tenets or his religion or his ability to practice it.
The tribunal noted that, for the worker’s complaint to succeed, he would have to demonstrate that he had a personal characteristic protected by the code, he was adversely impacted in employment, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.
The tribunal accepted and FIC agreed that termination of the worker’s employment was an adverse impact. However, to establish a protected characteristic of religious belief, the worker would have to show that he sincerely believed that publicly posting videos of himself preaching his views on those topics was connected to a religion, it was objectively required by his religion, and he subjectively believed it was required by his religion.
Sincerity of religious belief
The tribunal noted that it had previously established that “the sincerity of a complainant’s religious belief is a question of fact based on their credibility and factors such as whether their alleged belief is consistent with their religious practices and the material times.”
However, the tribunal found that the worker didn’t provide any basis for his argument that publicly disseminating his views was related to the tenets of his faith or his ability to practice his religion, or that his religious practice required him to do so.
The tribunal also found that FIC’s investigation and eventual termination of the worker’s employment was for a non-discriminatory reason - a breach of its policies. Although the director referred to religious views in the investigative meeting, it was only because the worker specifically invoked that term. This wasn’t enough to take the worker’s claim of religious discrimination “out of the realm of conjecture,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal determined that the worker failed to show that he had evidence that he had a sincere religious belief protected under the code. While the worker may have held Christian religious beliefs, he had nothing demonstrating that disseminating his views was part of his religious practice. As a result, it was unlikely that the worker would be able to provide any proof that his termination was discrimination based on religious beliefs.
The worker’s complaint was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success in a hearing. See Glebov v. Fraser International College, 2024 BCHRT 19.
