CFGB February 2010 eBulletin

Discrimination on the basis of sex

Board Findings and Recommendations

The grievor contended she was discriminated against on the basis of sex. The grievor was employed in the G3 Tasks position on Class B Reserve Service. At the end of her two-year term, a selection process was held to fill the same position for another three-year term; the grievor applied. There were two candidates interviewed, including the grievor, but neither was offered the position. At the time of the interview the grievor was known to be two months pregnant and the members of the interview board asked her if she was deployable. The grievor took the position that the question was meant to elicit her medical status.

The grievor's original request for redress was to be put in the position she was denied and receive the maternity and parental leave benefits to which she would have been entitled but for the denial of employment. In light of the time elapsed and the resulting change in circumstance, she amended her redress sought to strict financial compensation.

The Board found the grievor was discriminated against by the Canadian Forces (CF). In employment discrimination cases, the complainant bears the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination, following which the burden shifts to the employer to provide a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question. The Board found the grievor had proven a prima facie case of discrimination. The Board found the CF had not provided a reasonable explanation for the apparent discrimination. The Board also found it did not have to apply the test for justification of the discriminatory practice because the CF already has an accommodation policy for its pregnant members.

The Board found that the CF owed the grievor a duty to correctly administer the competition for class B employment; that it failed in that duty; and that as a result of that failure, the grievor suffered loss, in particular the financial losses consequent upon her not obtaining the G3 tasks position.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) uphold the grievance and that the CDS refer the file to the Director Human Rights and Diversity (DHRD) for restitution through an informal resolution.

Informal Resolution

The Board was informed that the grievor had withdrawn her grievance following an informal resolution offered by the DHRD.