Beyond Belief: The Burden of Proof in Workplace Discrimination Claims

Workplace discrimination remains a critical issue in modern society. While laws like the Alberta Human Rights Act aim to protect individuals from discriminatory practices, proving such claims can be complex. This blog post delves into the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta’s decision in Zhang v. GC & E Limited – Palace Casino, offering insights into the legal principles and evidentiary standards applied in discrimination cases.

This case provides a valuable framework for understanding how tribunals assess allegations of racial discrimination in employment, particularly in the context of differential treatment and termination.

Allegations of Racial Discrimination in Past Employment

The complainant employee alleged that her former employer discriminated against her based on her race. She claimed that she was subjected to differential treatment and that her race was a factor in her termination. The employee, who was of Asian descent and a Mandarin speaker, worked in the employer’s accounting department from 2006 to 2012.

Changes in Management and Departmental Composition

The employee began employment as an accounts payable clerk and was later promoted to accountant and senior accountant. Before 2012, the accounting department consisted of a controller, an accounts payable clerk, a payroll clerk, two accountants (including the employee), and a senior accountant. Notably, the employee and two other Asian women held key positions.

In 2012, a new controller, a White woman, was hired. The senior accountant resigned shortly after, and the complainant employee was promoted. Simultaneously, a White man was hired as an accountant. Several months later, the complainant employee and the accounts payable clerk, also an Asian woman, were terminated. A White male co-worker filled the complainant employee’s position.

The complainant employee, along with the former senior accountant and the terminated accounts payable clerk, alleged that they were treated differently than White and non-Asian employees, particularly by the new controller. They asserted that the controller aimed for an “all-White” department and that their terminations were racially motivated.

In response, the employer presented evidence from various employees, denying any differential treatment and asserting that the terminations were due to cost-saving measures and performance-related considerations.

Differential Treatment and the Role of Race in Employment Decisions

The Tribunal identified three primary issues:

1. Existence of Differential Treatment: Was the employee subjected to differential treatment in the workplace?
2. Racial Bias in Differential Treatment: Was the employee’s race a factor in this differential treatment?
3. Racial Factor in Employment Termination: Was the employee’s race a factor in terminating her employment?

Evidentiary Standards in Human Rights Cases

The Tribunal’s analysis centred on credibility, the burden of proof, and the assessment of circumstantial evidence.

Factors in Determining Credibility

The Tribunal emphasized that credibility involves more than just the appearance of truthfulness. Factors such as opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment, memory, and the ability to clearly describe events are crucial. The Tribunal also considered the consistency of evidence, the witness’s ability to recall events, their potential motives, and the presence of corroborative evidence.

The Complainant’s Legal Burden of Proof

In human rights complaints, the complainant bears the burden of proving discrimination on a balance of probabilities. This requires demonstrating that they had a protected characteristic under the Alberta Human Rights Act, suffered an adverse impact, and that the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.

The Tribunal clarified that the complainant did not need to prove an intention to discriminate or that the protected characteristic was the sole factor. Circumstantial evidence is often sufficient, especially in cases of racial discrimination. However, the Tribunal also stressed that the burden of proof remains with the complainant. Mere allegations or assumptions are insufficient; reliable evidence is required.

Testing Circumstantial Evidence

The Tribunal also outlined the three-part test for circumstantial evidence:

1. The Complainant must provide a prima facie case;
2. The Respondent gives a non-discriminatory reason; and
3. The Complainant proves the respondent’s reason is pretextual or insincere.

Tribunal’s Evaluation of Unequal Treatment Allegations

The employee alleged three instances of differential treatment, each evaluated by the Tribunal.

Prohibition of Speaking Mandarin

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employee was prohibited from speaking Mandarin. The issue arose from a concern about personal calls and noise levels, not the language itself.

Lunch Break Policies

The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of different lunch break rules for Asian employees. While the duration of the lunch break changed, it was applied to all employees. The Controller’s reprimand of the employee for being late did not necessarily indicate racial bias.

Pay Differential

The Tribunal acknowledged a pay differential between the employee and a newly hired White male accountant. However, the employer provided a reasonable explanation that the higher salary was necessary to attract an external candidate in a competitive market.

Determining the Role of Race in Differential Treatment

The Tribunal examined whether the employee’s race was a factor in the pay differential. The employer’s explanation that the higher salary was due to market pressures was deemed plausible. The Tribunal emphasized that the complainant employee must demonstrate that the employer’s explanation is pretextual or that race is a more probable explanation. In this case, the evidence did not support a finding of racial discrimination in the pay differential.

Determining the Role of Race in Employment Termination

The employee argued her race was a factor in her termination due to the controller’s alleged negative treatment of Asian employees and the subsequent replacement of Asian employees with White employees.

The Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish an overall prejudice against Asian employees. While there were allegations of negative treatment, such as the controller’s alleged “cold violence” (freezing out) towards the former senior accountant and a racial slur, these were not substantiated by credible evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the controller had advocated for the employee’s promotion and salary increase, contradicting the racial animus claim.

Employer’s Explanation for Termination

The employer asserted that the employee’s termination was due to cost-saving measures and performance-related considerations. The Tribunal found this explanation to be plausible and not pretextual.

Cost-Saving Measures

The employer provided evidence of ongoing business restructuring and cost-cutting efforts in 2012. Eliminating the accounts payable clerk position and reducing the number of accountants were consistent with these measures.

Performance-Related Considerations

The employer cited feedback from other employees about the complainant employee’s communication and leadership skills. They also raised concerns about her salary negotiations and an alleged failure to report an overpayment.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while the employee did not misuse confidential information or fail to report an overpayment, the perception of these actions was enough to add to the respondents’ concerns.

The Tribunal found that the employee’s preference for the White male co-worker’s leadership skills was not a pretext for racial discrimination. The evidence supported the assessment that he was more approachable and collaborative.

Implications for Alberta Employees and Employers

The Tribunal concluded the employee did not meet the burden of proving that her race was a factor in either the alleged differential treatment or her termination. The evidence did not establish that the employer’s explanations were pretextual or that racial discrimination was a more probable explanation.

This case highlights the need for employees to meticulously document any perceived discriminatory incidents, including dates, times, specific statements, and witness information. Understanding the burden of proof in human rights complaints is crucial, as employees must gather concrete evidence to support their allegations, moving beyond subjective feelings. Corroboration through witness testimony and early consultation with legal counsel are vital steps in navigating the complex process of proving discrimination, especially when recognizing subtle forms of bias.

Employers must prioritize implementing robust anti-discrimination policies and providing regular training to ensure a respectful workplace. Maintaining accurate and consistent records of employment decisions, ensuring fairness and transparency, and responding promptly to complaints are essential. Employers should diligently document performance issues, avoid pretextual explanations, and regularly review employment practices to mitigate risks. Seeking legal counsel to ensure compliance and navigate potential disputes is a critical preventative measure and will strengthen any defence against allegations of discrimination.

DBB Law: Exceptional Employment Lawyers Serving Calgary

The employment lawyers of DBB Law bring experience and insight to every stage of the employment relationship. We deliver customized legal solutions for both employees and employers across a broad range of employment and labour issues. Our skilled lawyers have successfully represented clients before all levels of court in Alberta, the Federal Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, and numerous administrative tribunals. To book a consultation, please call 403-265-7777 or contact us online.