Overzealous Discipline Found to Be Discriminatory
Amit worked as a video game programmer.
One day in the office lounge, a soccer game between Portugal and Iran was on the TV. The announcer said Iranian fans had camped outside the Portugal team’s hotel the previous evening and made a lot of noise, hoping to disturb their sleep and affect their game. The supervisor said the Iranian fans were cheating.
After the game, the president sent out an email saying that the Iranian fans’ tactic almost worked since the game ended in a tie.
Amit was from Iran. He felt the comments about the Iranian fans were negative. They were. Amit did not consider these comments discriminatory, but they did make him feel uncomfortable since everyone knew he was from Iran. Amit did not find all comments about Iran to be offensive, but on this occasion he told the supervisor he felt uncomfortable about his comment, and the conversation became heated.
The supervisor thought Amit was being overly sensitive. Amit sent an email to the president stating, “I know the news is true and it was wrongdoing. However, I was irritated by others mentioning this matter directly to me in the studio today and your email did not help and may annoy other Iranians in the studio as well. I think we should be more considerate of each other’s feelings. Thank you for your consideration.”
The president talked things over with the supervisor and directed the supervisor to get Amit to agree to a “reality check process.” The supervisor drafted a document he wanted Amit to sign. Although there were six different versions of the document after discussions between Amit and the supervisor, Amit did not sign any of them. In communications with the supervisor, the president expressed concern that if this perceived over-sensitivity was not nipped in the bud, it could create a toxic workplace where everyone was walking on eggshells.
One of the points in the reality check document was “Email is a poor medium to communicate when emotion is involved and sending an email when one is emotional is highly discouraged. In an extreme case, sending an email in an emotional state can result in termination if the email contains a verbal assault on another person.” The document went on to talk about Amit’s need to be more tolerant of dissenting perspectives and to engage in direct conversation immediately rather than bottling up anger.
Amit became resistant to all these different drafts of the document and said he did not want to participate in the process any more. The supervisor said if he did not, they could end up “cutting ties.”
Amit, in frustration, told the supervisor he was planning to show the reality check document to his lawyer. The supervisor said that would be a breach of his nondisclosure agreement with the company and indicated a lack of trust. He said he would have to contact the president and he did not know what the president would do. (No judge would agree with the supervisor’s opinion.) Amit backed off and said he would not talk to a lawyer.
When, ultimately, Amit refused to sign the document, it was simply placed in his file. A few months later, Amit filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal. A month after the company responded in writing to that complaint, he was terminated and told there was a shortage of work at the company and that it was part of a company-wide layoff.
Amit then amended his complaint, claiming retaliation for him having filed a human rights complaint. The company claimed the termination was because of a shortage of work, but it turned out that before Amit was even terminated, they were advertising for his replacement. Ultimately, the adjudicator found that the employer overreacted to Amit’s complaints because he was from Iran. The reality check document patronizingly advised Amit that in Canada, we encourage diversity of thought and respect for others’ feelings and that it was inappropriate to censor others. It expounded about multicultural societies demanding awareness and tolerance. The adjudicator found this kind of language was a direct result of stereotypes the employer had about people from Iran not understanding these principles.
The employer, of course, argued it would have given the same document regardless of the country of origin of the employee involved.
Amit was awarded $26,000 in lost wages and $35,000 for injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect. The adjudicator’s decision about the reality check process being discriminatory was tenuous at best.
What was not in question is that Amit was clearly terminated for having filed a complaint in the first place — that will always get an employer in trouble.
This article was originally published by The Hamilton Spectator.
