The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has declined to dismiss a complaint by a server who claims her shifts at a Vancouver sports bar dried up after she became pregnant.

Stephanie Lipp filed the human-rights complaint against the former Maverick’s Sports Lounge. For its part, Maverick’s denies discriminating against Lipp, and filed a late application to have the case thrown out.

On March 18, tribunal member Catherine McCreary decided not to accept Maverick’s application to dismiss the complaint.

“Had I exercised my discretion to accept the out-of-time Application, I would not have granted it, even without submissions from Ms. Lipp, because I cannot conclude that Ms. Lipp’s Complaint has no reasonable prospect of success,” McCreary wrote in her reasons for decision.

In her complaint, Lipp told the tribunal that she began working at Maverick’s around October 2012. Lipp claimed that, after she informed Michael O’Connell—the director of 0965319 BC Ltd., which had acquired Maverick’s—in February 2013 that she was pregnant, her shifts were reduced.

On May 8, 2013, Lipp informed Maverick’s, through her lawyer, that she “would no longer be reporting to the worksite as she had been constructively dismissed”.

“The Complaint alleges that, during and after her employment, Ms. Lipp received information from Maverick’s staff and another third party to affirm that the reduction in her hours of work was directed by Mr. O’Connell, was directed a result of her pregnancy, and was done at least in part to induce her to quit her employment,” the tribunal decision states.

In its response, Maverick’s disputed Lipp’s claims, saying that she “needed time off for her studies” and “was on the schedule for more shifts than she alleges”. The sports lounge also maintained that the elimination of the Vancouver Canucks from the NHL playoffs led to all employees’ shifts being cut.

“Maverick’s says that on the last week before Ms. Lipp ‘refused to show up for her shift,’ she was scheduled for three shifts,” the decision says.

McCreary opted not to exercise her discretion to accept Maverick’s late-filed application to dismiss. Nevertheless, the tribunal member explained in her decision that she would not have granted the application anyways.

“Ms. Lipp’s Complaint alleges that she is pregnant, that she suffered the adverse consequences of a reduction in shifts. She alleges that the owner of Mavericks was acting in this way to get her to quit because she was pregnant. In particular, the alleged timing of the reduction in work hours relative to Ms. Lipp announcing her pregnancy could give rise to a reasonable inference that Ms. Lipp’s pregnancy was a factor in the adverse treatment. She has alleged the necessary elements that, if proven, would amount to discrimination,” McCreary wrote.

“Conversely, while Maverick’s puts forward a non-discriminatory reason for its behaviour, it does not deal directly with Ms. Lipp’s allegations.”

McCreary encouraged Lipp and Maverick’s to use tribunal-assisted mediation to resolve the case.