An independent Human Rights Inquiry Committee has found discrimination against a woman who said she was dismissed because of pregnancy complications.
Donald Murray, chairman of the investigative committee of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, published his decision on February 7.
The woman’s identity and identifying information about the respondent and witnesses were not included in the decision for privacy reasons.
The woman, identified in the decision as AB, was fired from her position as a paralegal at a law firm identified as CB on May 6, 2019
complaint filed
She filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission in August.
Accordingly, the pregnant woman informed the company on April 16, 2019 that she had to terminate the pregnancy on medical advice.
After her interview with the company, the decision said, she received an employment insurance certificate of employment that listed April 12 as her last day of work, with a return-to-work date of April 29.
The pregnancy was terminated on April 23.
The woman developed an infection resulting from the termination, which required antibiotics.
She told the company on April 29 that her doctor asked her to take another week off, with a return date of May 6.
New return date
Pursuant to the decision, the company has submitted an amended proof of employment to the Canadian Revenue Agency with the new return date.
On May 5, she told the company that she would not be able to return to work the next day because her mental health was “not in a very good state.”
A company representative, identified in the decision as Ms D., responded on May 6, stating that she was already on three weeks’ sick leave/holiday and the company could not keep her position open for her.
The company also cited other labor issues in its decision.
She was terminated that day, her last pay period ending on May 17.
Diploma
In his conclusion, Murray said that termination of a pregnancy “can result in a continuation of the physical, physiological and psychological experiences for the person who has become pregnant”.
Murray said the work the company asked the complainant to do could and was done by the firm’s lawyers in her absence.
Murray determined that the other work issues cited by the company were not just grounds for termination.
He said the abortion was largely due to the applicant’s inability to work due to the “disabling effect of her abortion”.
“The decision taken on this ground to employ Ms B resulted in her being placed at a disadvantage on the basis of a protected characteristic (sex, including pregnancy and pregnancy-related illness), which I believe includes recovery from pregnancy,” concluded murray
A press release issued on February 10 says the parties have reached an agreement and the terms are confidential.
MORE TOP STORIES
