The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Real Pleadings: Discrimination in Dean Search at Windsor Law?

by David Doorey September 15, 2010
written by David Doorey September 15, 2010

Things are getting ugly at Windsor Law School.
One of two short-listed candidates for the Dean position has filed an explosive complaint under the Human Rights Code alleging that racial and gender discrimination explains why she was denied the position. Here is the story from the National Post, and here is the Windsor Star piece.
In another of my Real Pleadings series, here is the complaint and pleading filed by Professor Carasco.
carascoEmily Carasco alleges that her application for the Dean position was “sabotaged” by another Windsor professor, Richard Moon, who accused Carasco of plagiarism.  The law school had set up a committee to search for a new Dean, and the committee had selected two candidates, including Profesor Carasco.  However, both candidates were rejected, and the School is starting a new search.  The newspaper articles explain all the sad details of this story.
The most interesting aspect of the human rights complaint is the remedy sought.  Professor Carasco has asked the Tribunal to stop the new search and insert her as the Dean for the next five years.  Does the Tribunal have that power?
Look at the remedial section in the Code, section 45.2.  It’s super broad, isn’t it.  It says that the Tribunal can order a discriminating party to “make restitution” in monetary or non-monetary form, and even more broad, direct a party to “do anything that in the opinion of the tribunal the party ought to  do to promote compliance with the Code.”  Clearly, this could be interpreted so as to permit the Tribunal to order the Law School to make her Dean if it believes that she would have been Dean but for the illegal discrimination.
Do you think the Tribunal should interpret the remedial section in this way, and make the order even though Professor Carasco had been rejected through the Dean’s search process?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
American Take on the Magna-CAW Neutrality Agreement
next post
Canadian Labour Law Conference – Oct. 19-20, Toronto

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
22m

It's a stupid legal model.

If IBM gives employee, say, 19 months notice [LESS than what it concedes is required], there is probably no lawsuit. Instead, IBM lowballs, forces employee to lawyer up (hoping he wont or cant), then after expensive lawsuit, court orders 27 months.

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @TheLawofWork

Employer (IBM here) tells the court that 'reasonable notice' should be 20-22 months for a 38 yr service employee, but it gave EE only 38 weeks pay, the min required by ESA.

Court orders 27 months.

Milwid v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2023 ONSC 490: https://canlii.ca/t/jv9bq

Reply on Twitter 1641872654356606976 Retweet on Twitter 1641872654356606976 Like on Twitter 1641872654356606976 3 Twitter 1641872654356606976
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
27m

Employer (IBM here) tells the court that 'reasonable notice' should be 20-22 months for a 38 yr service employee, but it gave EE only 38 weeks pay, the min required by ESA.

Court orders 27 months.

Milwid v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2023 ONSC 490: https://canlii.ca/t/jv9bq

Reply on Twitter 1641871401299632145 Retweet on Twitter 1641871401299632145 2 Like on Twitter 1641871401299632145 10 Twitter 1641871401299632145
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

What an incredible waste of time and resources.

Just release the damned letters and stop wasting legal resources. Jeez.

John Michael McGrath @jm_mcgrath

INBOX: Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments in Ontario's case to keep the Ford government's mandate letters confidential on April 18. The province's information and privacy commissioner said the letters should be made public, and courts so far have agreed.

Reply on Twitter 1641862579197730823 Retweet on Twitter 1641862579197730823 6 Like on Twitter 1641862579197730823 37 Twitter 1641862579197730823
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.