Ruling (.pdf) - International Center for Law and Religion Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

evidence these allegations were ever investigated, or that “Pat” received a warning ordiscipline.[226] Ms. Heintz met with Mr. Alemu on July 27, 2000 to discuss the June 30, 2000discipline letter. During the meeting, Mr. Alemu reported a number of negativecomments and grievances which he said employees had raised about Ms. Heintz,including the allegation about stalking a co-worker. He also referred to comments madeby co-workers included in performance reviews dating back to 1996 and 1997. Ms.Heintz said she felt completely alone, and felt staff and management were ganging upon her. Asked in cross-examination why he had referred to Ms. Heintz’s earliestperformance appraisals when her recent appraisals showed “above average”performance, Mr. Alemu responded “that is why we keep records.”2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[227] Ms. Heintz met with Ms. Girling in late August 2000 to review her performanceappraisal. Ms. Heintz had indicated that she did not want to set performance objectives,and Ms. Girling admitted, in retrospect, that given Ms. Heintz’s level of stress, it may nothave been the correct decision to require Ms. Heintz to participate in a performancereview at that time. Ms. Girling signed the performance appraisal on August 15, 2000,Ms. Heintz on August 28, 2000 and Mr. Alemu on September 14, 2000. Mr. Alemumade a note that Ms. Heintz was under a written warning.[228] The 2000 performance appraisal was markedly different than the one for theprevious year. Ms. Heintz’s overall score dropped from “exceeds expectations” to“meets expectations”. In a number of categories she dropped to “requiresimprovement”. For example she received a ranking of 2.2 (requires improvement) in“displays professional behaviour”, 2 in “balances personal and work life”, 2 in “modelsexpected behaviour” (with a comment of “extremes seen by team mates”), and 2 in“manages conflict.”[229] There was no evidence from Christian Horizons that any of the shortcomingsidentified arose in the period prior to Ms. Heintz disclosing that she was gay, andseveral related directly to that disclosure. Consistent with other findings, it is clear that68
Christian Horizons relied on the discriminatory perspectives of other employees and Ms.Heintz’s reactions to a poisoned workplace when it was critical of her performance. Inlight of the fact that Christian Horizons had already determined that Ms. Heintz’semployment would be terminated in September, I find that its insistence on conducting aperformance review in late August was designed to urge her to resign because she wasgay.[230] In my view, the course of events described above demonstrates a completefailure of Christian Horizons to deal with Ms. Heintz in a way that is consistent with anemployer’s obligation under the Code. First, it is apparent that the investigation andinquiry into allegations of abuse and harassment by Ms. Heintz were biased and taintedby discrimination. Mr. Alemu testified that Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation was notrelevant to his investigation and he did not ask staff about Ms. Heintz being gay duringthe interviews. He indicated that it never occurred to him that Ms. Odhiambo’sallegations might have been related to Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation, or that Ms.Odhiambo was homophobic. Rather, he said he thought that Ms. Odhiambo’s fearswere well-founded. During his testimony, he did not accept any shortcomings on his, orthe organization’s, part in how the matter was handled. He laid all the blame on Ms.Heintz and on her “hostile” attitude during the investigation process and her negativitytoward Christian Horizons. As he put it, just because Ms. Heintz’s lifestyle hadchanged, did not mean that “all of a sudden the organization, the management is all of asudden, is a rotten one.”2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[231] I have difficulty accepting Mr. Alemu’s contentions. The contents of his notesdo not bear out his assertions that he did not consider Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientationrelevant and did not raise it with staff during the interviews. Ms. Odhiambo’s June 23,2000 occurrence report should have, at a minimum, caused Mr. Alemu to questionwhether it was motivated by a fear or dislike of homosexuals. Beyond this, it isinconceivable that, in an organization where one of the core beliefs is thathomosexuality is immoral, and fundamentally incompatible with “Christian ministry”, Ms.Heintz’s sexual orientation played no role in Mr. Alemu’s consideration of a “breakdownin the team dynamics.”69
Page 1 and 2:
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTSOVERVIEW .........
Page 5 and 6:
I) OVERVIEW[1] In March 1995, the c
Page 7 and 8:
Code which provides a framework and
Page 9 and 10:
[19] The length of the hearing and
Page 12 and 13:
[31] Rev. Reese testified that, aft
Page 14 and 15:
objects and purposes essentially re
Page 16 and 17:
meet the needs of individuals who w
Page 18 and 19:
support services to the residents,
Page 20 and 21:
organization. Each retreat involved
Page 22 and 23: Heintz was given a Letter of Employ
Page 24 and 25: Ms. Dorothy Girling, Ms. Heintz’s
Page 26 and 27: with pay pending the investigation
Page 28 and 29: ancestry, place of origin, colour,
Page 30 and 31: such a defence should not be read i
Page 32 and 33: all help it can to its members to a
Page 34 and 35: Analysis and Application of the Fac
Page 36 and 37: [117] On the basis of the evidence
Page 38 and 39: [124] Rev. Dr. Brent Hawkes, the Co
Page 40 and 41: doctrine, unjustifiably entangle th
Page 42 and 43: Christian Horizon urges me to adopt
Page 44 and 45: persons, individuals identified by
Page 46 and 47: the residents, they were not able t
Page 48 and 49: noted above, that families came fro
Page 50 and 51: would otherwise be discriminatory,
Page 52 and 53: confronted about being in a same se
Page 54 and 55: whole. Section 24(2) imposes a duty
Page 56 and 57: 57. The first step in assessing whe
Page 58 and 59: a rational connection between the q
Page 60 and 61: If individuals in Canada were permi
Page 62 and 63: the faith beliefs of the organizati
Page 64: And so they have gay and lesbian st
Page 67 and 68: discriminatory views of managers or
Page 69 and 70: Horizons’ management from the poi
Page 71: • On this and suspicious abuse al
Page 75 and 76: we're committed to as God's way in
Page 77 and 78: obligations placed on all employers
Page 79 and 80: Inc. (No. 4) (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/
Page 81 and 82: late in 1999. She testified that wh
Page 83 and 84: Heintz. None of her concerns about
Page 85 and 86: [268] Ms. Heintz testified about he
Page 87 and 88: take steps to justify why gays and
Page 89 and 90: for over 40 years. It has grown fro
Page 91 and 92: 1. the respondent, Christian Horizo
Page 93 and 94: ADDENDUM TO FINAL DECISION[1] This
Page 95 and 96: Horizons appealed that decision, an
show all

Ruling (.pdf) - International Center for Law and Religion Studies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?