Nova Scotia woman fired after filing sexual harassment charges against her boss
A Nova Scotia woman was subjected to sexual harassment over a period of several years at the restaurant where she worked, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Board of Inquiry has found.
Danielle Bennett, of New Minas, N.S., worked as a waitress at Hau’s Family Restaurant from March 2000 until June 2004. She also worked at a bar called JR’s Lounge. Both businesses were owned by Michael and Bonnie Tan. Like several other employees, Bennett sometimes borrowed money from the Tans, to be paid back at 30 per cent interest. Bonnie Tan said she often gave her advances to buy things like cars, televisions, eyeglasses and groceries.
Over the course of her employment, Michael would sometimes slap her behind or lift her shirt to look at her behind and say, “just checking you out.” She said he often walked into her and touched her breast. He also made comments to her about women’s looks and he could hook her up with a young man. She repeatedly told him that behaviour was unacceptable but eventually accepted it as part of the job, which she didn’t want to lose. At one point Bonnie asked her if he had touched her and he stopped for a while but it soon resumed.
On the evening of April 19, 2004, as Bennett closed the restaurant, Tan grabbed her breast and later her rear end. She told Bonnie about it, and she told Bennett to talk to Michael about it. Bennett told Michael she would quit if he didn’t admit his behaviour to his wife. She also demanded he speak to an employee at JR’s Lounge who was harassing her. Michael apologized and asked her to stay.
Bennett also complained to Bonnie about the lounge employee but the co-owner responded by laughing with him. Bennett then gave five weeks’ notice that she was quitting.
After Bennett complained to police and Michael was charged with sexual harassment, the Tans told her to drop the charges or pay back the balance of her outstanding loan, which was about $1,200. She went to the police again to complain about this “threat”. Afterwards, she discovered she had been taken of the work schedules of both Hau’s and JR’s and Bonnie Tan claimed she had quit and walked out.
Bennett subsequently experienced problems trying to get her separation papers from the Tans. Also, after trying to arrange loan payments once she started a new job, Bennett discovered the Tans had removed her name from her vehicle registration. After she paid off the loan, however, she had to have police accompany her to get the vehicle’s papers back. Michael Tan also had Bennett’s son removed from karate lessons that were held in a building he owned.
The stress of the harassment and the ensuing difficulties had a detrimental effect on Bennett. She had trouble eating and sleeping, cried in front of her family, began drinking and suffered from panic attacks.
In court, Michael Tan admitted he did touch Bennett’s behind once but denied ever touching her breasts. He also denied he had ever slapped her behind or lifted her shirt. He said after the charges were filed, “I did not threaten her. I just wanted my money back.” He said he told her if she didn’t pay the loan back he would keep her car. The Tans said Bennett wasn’t a good employee, other employees complained about her and she only made the accusations of sexual harassment after they refused to give her more money.
The board of inquiry noted Michael Tan did admit to touching Bennett’s behind on April 19, 2004, though he denied the other incidents. The board used this as proof his conduct was sexual and nonconsensual. This led the court to believe this was likely not the only incident and Bennett’s claims had merit, as well as Tan’s “cavalier attitude” towards his guilty plea to the sexual harassment charge.
“I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Michael Tan engaged in a course of conduct over the course of four years in relation to Danielle Bennett which would constitute sexual harassment,” the board said.
Though it found Michael Tan to be guilty of repeated instances of sexual harassment against Bennett, it did not find Bonnie Tan to be involved. Though she sided with her husband, the board did not see any evidence she condoned his behaviour. The fact the harassment stopped for a while after Bennett complained was an indicator she didn’t approve.
The board found the Tans being her creditors as well as her employers put her in a position of vulnerability, which Michael Tan took advantage of. After he was charged, the board noted several acts of retaliation against her such as her firing, harassment by other employees, banning her son from karate lessons, not delivering her separation papers, and demanding immediate repayment of the loan.
Though the Tans claimed Bennett quit, the board looked at the fact she had called to check the schedule afterwards, a sign she had not intended to terminate her employment. It concluded that in addition to being subjected to sexual harassment, Bennett had been wrongfully dismissed in retaliation for filing charges against Michael Tan.
The board awarded Bennett $2,500 in general damages. It was also concerned Tan had harassed other female employees as well, so it ordered the Tans and Hau’s to be monitored by the human rights commission for three years. It also ordered the Tans to take sensitivity training and to report to the commission the reason for any employee leaving during that time. Finally, the board ordered the restaurant to develop a sexual harassment policy and post it where all staff can see it.
For more information see:
• Danielle Bennett and Hau’s Family Restaurant and/or Michael Tan and/or Bonnie Tan, Nova Scotia Human Rights Board of Inquiry decision, March 2007, Robert C. Stewart, Chair.
Danielle Bennett, of New Minas, N.S., worked as a waitress at Hau’s Family Restaurant from March 2000 until June 2004. She also worked at a bar called JR’s Lounge. Both businesses were owned by Michael and Bonnie Tan. Like several other employees, Bennett sometimes borrowed money from the Tans, to be paid back at 30 per cent interest. Bonnie Tan said she often gave her advances to buy things like cars, televisions, eyeglasses and groceries.
Over the course of her employment, Michael would sometimes slap her behind or lift her shirt to look at her behind and say, “just checking you out.” She said he often walked into her and touched her breast. He also made comments to her about women’s looks and he could hook her up with a young man. She repeatedly told him that behaviour was unacceptable but eventually accepted it as part of the job, which she didn’t want to lose. At one point Bonnie asked her if he had touched her and he stopped for a while but it soon resumed.
On the evening of April 19, 2004, as Bennett closed the restaurant, Tan grabbed her breast and later her rear end. She told Bonnie about it, and she told Bennett to talk to Michael about it. Bennett told Michael she would quit if he didn’t admit his behaviour to his wife. She also demanded he speak to an employee at JR’s Lounge who was harassing her. Michael apologized and asked her to stay.
Bennett also complained to Bonnie about the lounge employee but the co-owner responded by laughing with him. Bennett then gave five weeks’ notice that she was quitting.
After Bennett complained to police and Michael was charged with sexual harassment, the Tans told her to drop the charges or pay back the balance of her outstanding loan, which was about $1,200. She went to the police again to complain about this “threat”. Afterwards, she discovered she had been taken of the work schedules of both Hau’s and JR’s and Bonnie Tan claimed she had quit and walked out.
Bennett subsequently experienced problems trying to get her separation papers from the Tans. Also, after trying to arrange loan payments once she started a new job, Bennett discovered the Tans had removed her name from her vehicle registration. After she paid off the loan, however, she had to have police accompany her to get the vehicle’s papers back. Michael Tan also had Bennett’s son removed from karate lessons that were held in a building he owned.
The stress of the harassment and the ensuing difficulties had a detrimental effect on Bennett. She had trouble eating and sleeping, cried in front of her family, began drinking and suffered from panic attacks.
In court, Michael Tan admitted he did touch Bennett’s behind once but denied ever touching her breasts. He also denied he had ever slapped her behind or lifted her shirt. He said after the charges were filed, “I did not threaten her. I just wanted my money back.” He said he told her if she didn’t pay the loan back he would keep her car. The Tans said Bennett wasn’t a good employee, other employees complained about her and she only made the accusations of sexual harassment after they refused to give her more money.
The board of inquiry noted Michael Tan did admit to touching Bennett’s behind on April 19, 2004, though he denied the other incidents. The board used this as proof his conduct was sexual and nonconsensual. This led the court to believe this was likely not the only incident and Bennett’s claims had merit, as well as Tan’s “cavalier attitude” towards his guilty plea to the sexual harassment charge.
“I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Michael Tan engaged in a course of conduct over the course of four years in relation to Danielle Bennett which would constitute sexual harassment,” the board said.
Though it found Michael Tan to be guilty of repeated instances of sexual harassment against Bennett, it did not find Bonnie Tan to be involved. Though she sided with her husband, the board did not see any evidence she condoned his behaviour. The fact the harassment stopped for a while after Bennett complained was an indicator she didn’t approve.
The board found the Tans being her creditors as well as her employers put her in a position of vulnerability, which Michael Tan took advantage of. After he was charged, the board noted several acts of retaliation against her such as her firing, harassment by other employees, banning her son from karate lessons, not delivering her separation papers, and demanding immediate repayment of the loan.
Though the Tans claimed Bennett quit, the board looked at the fact she had called to check the schedule afterwards, a sign she had not intended to terminate her employment. It concluded that in addition to being subjected to sexual harassment, Bennett had been wrongfully dismissed in retaliation for filing charges against Michael Tan.
The board awarded Bennett $2,500 in general damages. It was also concerned Tan had harassed other female employees as well, so it ordered the Tans and Hau’s to be monitored by the human rights commission for three years. It also ordered the Tans to take sensitivity training and to report to the commission the reason for any employee leaving during that time. Finally, the board ordered the restaurant to develop a sexual harassment policy and post it where all staff can see it.
For more information see:
• Danielle Bennett and Hau’s Family Restaurant and/or Michael Tan and/or Bonnie Tan, Nova Scotia Human Rights Board of Inquiry decision, March 2007, Robert C. Stewart, Chair.
