Bad Day for Ford – BC Human Rights Tribunal Finds Ford Discriminated Against Employee While On Maternity Leave

By: Michelle Quinn

Reading Time: 3 minutes

In the case of LaFleche v. NLFD Auto dba Prince George Ford (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 88, the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found that Ms. LaFleche had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and family status. She was terminated from her position while on maternity leave.

Ms. LaFleche commenced work at NLFD Auto Ltd. dba Prince George Ford (“Ford”) in 2015 as a social media manager. In December 2016, she was promoted to a new full-time position as the marketing manager by the general manager of Ford. She was the sole marketing manager. She was successful in her work and performed well.

Prior to going on maternity leave in May 2018, Ms. LaFleche hired Jessica Callahan (“Ms. Callahan”) in and around April 2018 to cover for Ms. LaFleche while she was on maternity leave. Ms. LaFleche was involved in Ms. Callahan’s hiring and training for the position.

Ms. Callahan was hired temporarily to fill the marketing manager position.

Ms. LaFleche was expected to return to work on July 2, 2019. While Ms. LaFleche was on maternity leave, Ford hired a new general manager, Chris Wall (“Mr. Wall”), who took over the supervision of the marketing manager position, and he was pleased with Ms. Callahan’s work.

On February 8, 2019, Ms. LaFleche had a meeting (the “Meeting”) with Mr. Wall and Ford’s senior controller. In that Meeting, Mr. Wall informed Ms. LaFleche that Ms. Callahan would be staying on as marketing manager and that he would get back to her by the end of March to discuss her return to work position and duties. This did not happen. Consequently, Ms. LaFleche did not return to work at the end of her maternity leave on July 2, 2019.

On February 13, 2019, Ms. LaFleche filed a complaint with the Tribunal. She alleged that Ford’s conduct was discriminatory based on sex and family status contrary to section 13 of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”).

The Issues

The issues before the Tribunal were threefold:

Whether Ford removed Ms. LaFleche from her marketing position;
Whether Ford’s conduct adversely affected Ms. LaFleche, including whether it constructively dismissed her; and
Whether Ms. LaFleche’s sex and/or family status were factors in any adverse impact.

The Decision

The Tribunal found that Ford removed Ms. LaFleche from her marketing manager position and constructively dismissed her from employment which adversely affected her. The Tribunal accepted that Ms. LaFleche was humiliated in the Meeting and grieved the loss of her job.

Ford argued that Ms. Fleche’s maternity leave was not a factor in its decision to retain Ms. Callahan as the marketing manager and make changes to Ms. LaFleche’s position on her return from maternity leave. The Tribunal did not accept this argument and held:

[para 61] I agree that Ford was entitled to make legitimate business decisions while Ms. LaFleche was on leave. What Ford was not entitled to do however, was make changes that left Ms. LaFleche at a disadvantage, compared to other employees who were not on leave: Artuso at paras.35-36. Were it otherwise, the Code’s protection against pregnancy-related discrimination would be rendered hollow: Parry v. Vanwest College, 2005 BCHRT 310 [Parry] at paras. 67-69. Ford made changes to the marketing department and Ms. LaFleche’s position more specifically because it preferred her maternity leave replacement. In essence, Ms. Callahan was retained in a managerial role, and Ms. LaFleche was worse off than she was before her maternity leave. But for Ms. LaFleche’s maternity leave, she would have continued as the marketing manager; a role that Ms. Callahan has continued in since Ms. LaFleche’s Code- protected leave.

Ford had discriminated against Ms. LaFleche on the basis of sex and family status contrary to section 13 of the Code.

If you have experienced discrimination in the workplace and need some legal advice, contact Michelle Quinn, Partner, in the Employment and Human Rights Group at mquinn@rbs.ca or call at 604.661.9229.

About Michelle Quinn

Michelle is an Irish solicitor who moved to Vancouver in August 2011. She joined Richards Buell Sutton LLP in December 2014 and is a partner in the firm’s Employment & Human Rights, Litigation and Dispute Resolution and Personal Injury Law Groups.

Read this next:

Employment Contract Impossible to Perform: COVID-19 An Unforeseeable Event?

Reading Time: 2 minutes

We continue to receive many questions from employers and employees about terminations and lay-offs, so in this blog post we provide an overview of the key notice provisions in the BC Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) that may assist you during these uncertain times. The minimum notice periods identified in the ESA may be in the form of working notice or payment in lieu of notice. In particular, we take a look at rarely used section 65(1)(d) of the ESA which states that an employer is not required to provide notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice to its employees if it can prove that COVID-19 has been an “unforeseen circumstance” that has made continuing the employment contract “impossible”.
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace is NOT Locker Room Talk – It’s Illegal

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The MeToo movement and the widespread media coverage reporting on incidents of allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct has placed the problem and extent of sexual harassment firmly in the spotlight. Given the heightened awareness regarding the prevalence of this issue, I decided to write an informative post about what constitutes sexual harassment, and how Canadian law prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace.

BC Workplace Blog