Human rights complaint upheld against Vancouver's Yellow Cab
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Vancouver cab company to pay more than $24,000 in compensation and damages to a former senior employee.
Shawn Bowden alleged he was discriminated against on the basis of mental disability after his employment with Yellow Cab Company was terminated in 2009.
Bowden, 45, had held the position of general manager with the owner-operated outfit, which is billed as the largest taxi company in B.C.
He claimed mental disability had prevented him from attending work for a period that followed a heated meeting with company directors in December 2008.
He had been diagnosed at various times with a range of depression and anxiety illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
The respondents denied they discriminated, alleging there were ongoing work-performance issues with Bowden.
They also alleged he abandoned his position after not attending a board meeting in early January 2009 and challenged his mental-disability claim.
In the reasons for decision issued on January 20, tribunal member Enid Marion found the complaint against the company to be justified.
“After considering all the evidence,” Marion writes, “I find that the respondents ought reasonably to have been aware that there may be a relationship between Mr. Bowden’s medical condition and his absence, and had a duty to inquire prior to making any adverse decision based, whole or in part, on his absence.”
The company has been ordered to pay Bowden $14,732 as compensation for lost wages; $10,000 as damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect; and additional interest payments.
Former company director Naresh Kalia, past president Amarjeet Kang, and current president Kulwant Singh Sahota had also been named as respondents. However, Marion dismissed the complaint against them.
In 2009, the tribunal also dismissed a related complaint of discrimination based on race by Bowden.
You can follow Stephen Thomson on Twitter at twitter.com/thomsonstraight.
Comments
5 Comments
Birdy
Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31pm
As someone who the government has officially classified as "mentally ill", I'd like to ask all you other crazies out there to PLEASE stop using your mental illness as a fucking lottery ticket!
This is yet another example of why the stigma of mental illness continues to grow. If you stop showing up to your job your boss should have every right to fire you.
Worker: "Waaaa... I feel sad today, I don't wanna work"
Boss: "Ok, you're fired"
Worker: "Gimme $10,000 for injury to feelings"
Boss: "What?!?"
BCHRT to Boss: "Bend over you evil business owner! We're gonna teach you a lesson!!"
.....and people wonder why the jobs are going overseas? Who on earth would want to run a business in this kind of environment? You'd have to be nuts!
glen p robbins
Jan 21, 2011 at 5:03pm
I read this - Bowden ought to have received triple these damages for that utter nonsens and psychological torture. $25,000 -$30,000 non pecs would have been more appropriate imo
glen p robbins
Jan 22, 2011 at 8:40am
Birdy thanks for the designation. Did you read the Reasons of the member? I am no fan of the BCHRT - but in this case Bowden was clearly a sympathetic person - the protagonist to be sure, caught in the middle of a power struggle (more like a juvenile game) where nothing was real - it was surreal.
In this rendition Bowden came off as a competent (I presume white guy) caught in the middle like a referee at a soccer game involving persons living near or around the equator - when things go off the rails. He had no chance. He may not have been mentally ill as you say you are, but the stress of not knowing if he is coming or going - and the myriad of lies and manipulation made it impossible for him to work in that environment, and it wasn't a situation of HIS making. The others made it impossible for him to work. What would he do go to Employment Standards? The BC Liberals own that and its worthless.
No-one should have to work in an environment like that. People want to be able to earn their living in a safe and reasonable environment - the one described in the Reasons sounded like a nuthouse to my interpretation.
In fact, if you read the Reasons, Bowden seemed very capable, good at his job, straight and honest. But he was not among similar type people and given his lesser authority he had no chance to succeed. The 'bosses' did not want a mediator - communicator - they wanted someone they could use as a foil - for their own political power means.
I don't believe any reasonable person who actually read the entire Reasons would press Disagree unless they were partisan to this debate.
Birdy
Jan 22, 2011 at 1:38pm
-That hurt my feelings Glen, I'd like my $10,000 by the end of next week.
-No, I didn't read that monotonous 61-page document in it's entirety.
-"What would he do go to Employment Standards?" If a legitimate discriminatory crime has been committed against him he should go to a legitimate court of law.
-Your argument is basically that the work environment was really negative for this guy, and therefor you propose he should win $30,000. Also you state "the stress of not knowing if he is coming or going" meant he had "no chance"
That's the quintessential bullshit right there. I've had shitty jobs before, with impossible people, so I QUIT them and moved on to DIFFERENT JOBS. It's not complicated. I've also worked short term contract-to-contract, and if you can't handle "not knowing if you're coming or going" maybe you shouldn't be in that line of work. The bottom line is that people need to take personal responsibility for their careers, and not blame others, or alleged mental illness when they CHOOSE to go down a path that ends up not being right for them.
glen p robbins
Jan 23, 2011 at 2:49pm
Hi birdy - right I get it on the 10 grand. I am able to read these things quickly (what kind of gift is that eh? yucks),
I'm not with you on the Employment Standards - criminal court thing, thought I have advocated for the Human Rights registry as part of the Provincial (Civil) Court. Employment Standards depends on who is in government - like WorkSafe BC.
If an employer friendly government is in - the worker is screwed on both of those counts (I have been witness to both through both governments -Jekyll and Hyde).
This fellow had a job near the apex of power - in the business, this is a little different than the average job - and thus the consideration is different.
I was an advocate for a fellow in a case where we negotiated the highest Human Rights award in provincial history - this fellow worked for a company for 20 years and was making $100,000 by the time the company started screwing with his head - very similar. Your devoted, you try to do the right thing day in and day out --------- and get caught in power plays of owners and others with agendas that make considering some employees - in this case a fellow earning in the top 1% of the population---a non event.
Labour is mobile (Economics 101) - but management type work is less so - because if you stay you go crazy - if you fight you get black balled and are forced to the bottom of the rung - and the employers know this when they start playing these games.
I still think the company should have gotten pasted.