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

attacks on their dignity and self-respect. In Hinds, supra, the Canadian Human RightsTribunal framed the obligation of an employer this way:(,,,) there is a duty upon an employer to take prompt and effectualaction when it knows or should know of co-employees' conduct in theworkplace amounting to racial harassment ... To satisfy the burdenupon it, the employer's response should bear some relationship to theseriousness of the incident itself ... To avoid liability, the employer isobliged to take reasonable steps to alleviate, as best it can, the distressarising within the work environment and to reassure those concernedthat it is committed to the maintenance of a workplace free of racialharassment. A response that is both timely and corrective is called forand its degree must turn upon the circumstances of the harassment ineach case. (para. 41611)2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[238] Christian Horizons had a responsibility to respond to the rumours andallegations which were clearly tied to Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation. It had anobligation to investigate, to inquire, and to take steps to put an end to the effects of theattitudes that were poisoning the workplace and having a detrimental impact on Ms.Heintz. Christian Horizons says, and Ms. Heintz agreed, there were a number of eventsand issues that where causing stress in the workplace in the spring and summer of2000. But it is clear, and should have been clear to Christian Horizons, that thenegative and discriminatory attitudes towards gays and lesbians that were being playedout in a real and active way, was a central factor in the discord at Waterloo 6.[239] Ms. Heintz testified that during the period after she came out as a lesbian, shefelt the organization just wanted her to leave. The evidence demonstrated that she wascorrect. Certain individuals, like Dorothy Girling and some of Ms. Heintz’s co-workers,were clearly conflicted. However, as an organization, Christian Horizons was totally illequippedto deal properly with the circumstances of a staff member who came out asbeing gay. Given the nature of the faith beliefs of the organization, I fully appreciate thatthis presented a dilemma. But it was a dilemma Christian Horizons was required tosolve. Ms. Heintz should not have been required to endure the humiliation, attacks andmistreatment because Christian Horizons had not developed an understanding of the72