Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Is calling an employee "boobie girl" sexual harassment?

by David Doorey April 28, 2009
written by David Doorey April 28, 2009

A curious little decision was released this month by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal involving sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.  In Schmor v. Stone Church Vineyards, an employee alleged that she had been sexually harassed by another female employee, and then dismissed when the employer was told (by a third employee)  that the comments made were offending her.
The alleged harasser had repeatedly called Schmor ‘boobie girl’ in front of customers and co-workers, apparently a reference to the fact that she had sunbathed topless on a holiday.  Later, the alleged harasser told Schmor to climb a pole in front of the workplace to change a sign, and then slide down the pole like a stripper.  Schmor did not tell the alleged harasser that she found the comments offensive, but claims the comments made her embarrassed and uncomfortable, and that she was afraid to say anything because the woman making the comments was close with management.  However, another employee told the owner about the comments and that they were making Schmor uncomfortable.  After that, both Schmor and the woman who told the owners about the comments were terminated.
Schmor wins her case, but on the basis that she was fired as a result of the employer learning she did not like being called ‘boobie girl’.   The tribunal found this to be unlawful reprisal under Section 8 of the Code. However, she lost the argument that the comment amounted to sexual harassment.  I think this is a weird decision.  Section 7 prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace, and then section 10 defines harassment as:

“engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome”

The Tribunal found (1) that the comment were of a nature that the alleged harasser ought to have known they were unwelcome, and (2) that the comments were demeaning and embarrassing. But then Adjudicator Slotnick ruled that the comments were not ‘sexual’! Here’s what he ruled:

Here, while the remarks may refer to body parts and activities that in other contexts have sexual connotations, there is no suggestion that Ms. Edlington was making any sexual requests or suggestions.  In fact, the evidence is that the “boobie girl” comment began as part of a friendly and innocent conversation about sunbathing.  It was not a conversation about sex or a conversation that was related to either party’s sexual interests.There can be little doubt that calling someone “boobie girl” in front of others, including customers in the store, would be seen as demeaning and embarrassing, just as would the use of any other insulting language, whether sexual or not.  In my view, the word “boobie” in this context does not transform an insulting remark into harassment because of sex. 

So, according to this decision, for sexual harassment to occur, the comments must involve a a ‘sexual suggestion’ or ‘request’.  I have serious doubts whether that is a correct interpretation of the law, it sounds awful narrow a definition.  What do you think about this decision?  Do you think the result would have been different if the harasser was a male rather than a female?
Finally, note that although the Tribunal finds there was no unlawful harassment here, the employer still breached the Code by retaliating against the employee once it learned she did not wish to be called ‘boobie girl’.  In other words, it is ok to harass an employee by calling her ‘boobie girl’, even if the employer is aware that the conduct is unwanted, but it is not ok to fire the employee for asking that the name-calling stop.  Isn’t that weird?  The Tribunal explains that apparent anomaly by noting that the employee victim ‘believed’ it was a human rights issue.  
Oh, I see.   This could be a new way into the Human Rights Code for people not covered by a protected ground.  For example, physical appearance is not a protected ground, so my employer can call me ‘ugly’ all it wants without violating the Human Rights Code (unless my ‘ugliness’ is related to a designated ground).  But if I ‘think’ the comment that I am ugly is a human rights issue, and I ask my employer to stop calling me ugly, I may now have a human rights complaint if my employer dismisses me for complaining about being called ugly.  Follow?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Top 10 Labour & Employment Law Papers (April 26th)
next post
Katherine Stone on the U.S. Employee Free Choice Act

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.