The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta has ruled that termination of employment on the day an employee returns from a year-long mental-health leave doesn’t, in and of itself, support a discrimination complaint.
“In this case, the employer had valid grounds for termination before the medical leave started, and the fact that the complainant’s case had nothing to go on other than the timing of the termination played a big part in the decision,” says Christin Elawny, employment and litigation practice group lead at Getz Collins and Associates and who represented Lethbridge Family Services, the employer in the proceedings.
Sarah Amies, a Lethbridge Family Services employee, was the subject of three workplace investigations. After the third investigation, the employer met with her to discuss the investigation and allow her an opportunity to provide further information.
The next day — before the employer had an opportunity to conclude the investigation and inform her of the results — Amies was hospitalized for mental-health reasons. The employer placed her on medical leave, where she remained for a year. On the day she returned, the organization terminated her.
Amies filed a complaint under the Alberta Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on mental disability. But Lethbridge Family Services filed evidence that the investigations had turned up a history of serious misconduct and workplace issues, including concerns about management of the department, problems with the work environment created by management and the complainant’s performance.
Read: Family status discrimination issues remain ‘minefield’ for employers
The director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Amies sought a review from the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta. She submitted that if the decision to terminate her was taken during or after her medical leave, her disability played a part in the termination, rendering it discriminatory.
The tribunal agreed the termination’s timing might support the conclusion that mental disability contributed to it, but the evidence was that the termination followed solely on the findings of the investigation.
“There is no information, other than the timing of effecting the termination, to support a discrimination claim,” stated Jessica Gill, the adjudicator. “The respondent has provided an explanation with supporting documentation and shown the reasons for terminating the complainant’s employment for cause. The respondent accommodated the complainant’s medical leave. There is no indication that disability was a factor in the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment.”
Read: Workplace weight programs can foster discrimination of obese employees
The fact that the investigation itself contributed to Amies’ need for medical leave didn’t affect this conclusion. “The investigation process itself led to the complainant being on leave, which then reasonably delayed the respondent’s decision to effect the termination,” Gill stated. “The respondent decided to suspend carrying out its decision until the complainant returned.”
As Amies had no reasonable prospect of success, Gill confirmed the director’s decision to dismiss her complaint.
Elawny says Lethbridge made the right decision in holding off termination until Amies returned from leave. “The risk of a discrimination finding is always greater if the termination occurs while the employee is still on leave, but in all cases, employers should make sure the pre-leave circumstances are well documented.”
Read: B.C. tribunal finds reduced benefits for older workers not age discrimination