Postmedia News
A Calgary server who was terminated from her restaurant job two months after telling her boss she was pregnant has been awarded more than $33,000 in an Alberta Human Rights Commission decision.
© Provided by Calgary Herald FILE PHOTO:
The northern regional office of the Alberta human rights commission in Edmonton Wednesday on April 15, 2009.
Sherry McPherson filed a discrimination complaint with the commission, alleging her employer, LDV Pizza Bar, cut her hours and abruptly altered her schedule before she was ultimately dismissed.
McPherson’s complaint stated the changes all occurred soon after she’d announced her pregnancy to her supervisor.
The business denied the alleged discrimination during a tribunal hearing, arguing the decision to dismiss McPherson was based only on her poor performance and attitude.
However, tribunal chair Sharon Lindgren, in a decision posted online last week , said the business offered no evidence or rationale during the hearing to support its position.
Lindgren found the operator discriminated against McPherson on the basis of gender and awarded her $23,000 in general damages and another $10,648 in lost wages and tips, stating the restaurant’s actions had “serious and long lasting” effects.
“But for the discrimination, the complainant would have been free to focus on the excitement and joy often associated with the arrival of a first child. Instead she experienced fear, stress, money worries, depression and anxiety,” Lindgren wrote.
McPherson started as a server at LDV in July 2013 and worked about four evening shifts each week, the tribunal heard.
After telling her supervisor in March 2014 that she was pregnant, her weekly hours were cut from an average of 23 to 15 and she was later moved to the less-lucrative lunch shift. In May, one day after requesting a return to evening shifts until her maternity leave began, she was terminated.
Siblings Rocco Cosentino and Catherine Cosentino managed LDV at the time of McPherson’s dis
Sherry McPherson filed a discrimination complaint with the commission, alleging her employer, LDV Pizza Bar, cut her hours and abruptly altered her schedule before she was ultimately dismissed.
McPherson’s complaint stated the changes all occurred soon after she’d announced her pregnancy to her supervisor.
The business denied the alleged discrimination during a tribunal hearing, arguing the decision to dismiss McPherson was based only on her poor performance and attitude.
However, tribunal chair Sharon Lindgren, in a decision posted online last week , said the business offered no evidence or rationale during the hearing to support its position.
Lindgren found the operator discriminated against McPherson on the basis of gender and awarded her $23,000 in general damages and another $10,648 in lost wages and tips, stating the restaurant’s actions had “serious and long lasting” effects.
“But for the discrimination, the complainant would have been free to focus on the excitement and joy often associated with the arrival of a first child. Instead she experienced fear, stress, money worries, depression and anxiety,” Lindgren wrote.
McPherson started as a server at LDV in July 2013 and worked about four evening shifts each week, the tribunal heard.
After telling her supervisor in March 2014 that she was pregnant, her weekly hours were cut from an average of 23 to 15 and she was later moved to the less-lucrative lunch shift. In May, one day after requesting a return to evening shifts until her maternity leave began, she was terminated.
Siblings Rocco Cosentino and Catherine Cosentino managed LDV at the time of McPherson’s dis
She noted the managers never had a formal discussion with McPherson about her performance or had any record of complaints regarding her work.missal.
They testified the complainant was a difficult employee with a poor attitude.
Lindgren disagreed, finding the Cosentinos “dissected the complainant’s work history with a fine tooth comb to come up with anything they could.”
“Much of the evidence advanced by the Cosentinos was inconsistent (including with each other), contradicted by documents (including documents authored by Rocco Cosentino), reluctantly conceded when inconsistencies were put to them, and reflected an inclination to tailor and embellish evidence in a self-serving fashion,” she wrote.
They testified the complainant was a difficult employee with a poor attitude.
Lindgren disagreed, finding the Cosentinos “dissected the complainant’s work history with a fine tooth comb to come up with anything they could.”
“Much of the evidence advanced by the Cosentinos was inconsistent (including with each other), contradicted by documents (including documents authored by Rocco Cosentino), reluctantly conceded when inconsistencies were put to them, and reflected an inclination to tailor and embellish evidence in a self-serving fashion,” she wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment