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

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