Saskatchewan doctor didn’t prove medical receptionist’s position was eliminated after he refused to bring her back following pregnancy leave
A Saskatchewan woman was awarded more than $8,000 for lost wages and mental anguish after her employer terminated her when she returned from pregnancy leave.
The decision by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in Kimbriel v. Mohamed underlines the fact that employers cannot discriminate against persons because of their sex, and discriminating against a pregnant employee constitutes sex discrimination.
Sandra Lee Kimbriel was hired as a receptionist for Dr. Hassan Mohamed, a cardiologist with a practice in Cornwall, Sask., in February 1999.
Kimbriel’s duties included booking appointments for Mohamed, answering the telephone, opening mail, preparing patient’s charts, performing electrocardiograms, preparing information for her wages and the wages of Sharon Lennox (the other doctor’s receptionist), ordering supplies for the office, filing and some preliminary billing.
In March a third doctor joined the practice and in September a third receptionist, Candace Frasz, was hired by the new doctor. Later that month the three doctors entered into a new arrangement with respect to their medical practices.
The exact nature of the new arrangement wasn’t clear, but the tribunal said it appears there was an equal sharing of certain expenses, including receptionist salaries and office rent, that started in November. The office also moved from the fifth floor of the building to the fourth floor around the same time.
Mohamed said he asked Kimbriel to assume the position of office manager sometime in the fall. But Kimbriel said she was never told she was given this position and never performed the duties of an office manager, which would include being a supervisor for the other two receptionists.
At the tribunal hearing, Mohamed said he was unsatisfied with her performance as a receptionist. He said he had a high rate of cancellations from patients which he suspected was due to her failure to telephone and remind patients of their appointments, she lied to him on a number of occasions, she was lazy and did not complete certain tasks.
Despite these feelings Mohamed didn’t oppose her alleged selection as the office manager when it was discussed among the three doctors. He said that in the fall of 1999 Kimbriel no longer had a role in taking his patients into the examining rooms and that Frasz was his receptionist. Kimbriel said her duties did not change, though Frasz did assist her with some of her duties. But that was because she was training to cover for Kimbriel’s maternity leave.
In late December Kimbriel suffered complications from her pregnancy and was required to take sick leave until she gave birth on May 1, 2000. When Kimbriel told Mohamed she had to leave for medical reasons in December, she said he was angry and upset and said it had left him “in a bad position.” After the birth, she told him she would be returning in November.
At the time of her departure, Kimbriel was earning $11 per hour. In the short-term, Frasz took over Kimbriel’s duties, working for two doctors. At the beginning of March, Lennox — the other receptionist — left the practice and a receptionist was hired to take her place. In July Frasz resigned and a new receptionist was hired to take her place.
Mohamed told the court the three doctors concluded their new business arrangement was not working in August and each physician would be responsible for the hiring and paying of their own receptionist and paying their own expenses.
With the new arrangement, there would be no office manager. As a result of this, and his dissatisfaction with Kimbriel when she was his receptionist, he intended to dismiss her shortly after she returned to work. He hired a receptionist, Paula Empringham, in August.
In October Kimbriel phoned Mohamed to discuss her return date. She was willing and able to return to work on Nov. 1. During that call, Mohamed told her she no longer had a job. This was confirmed in a letter dated Nov. 2. He gave her two-weeks’ pay.
Kimbriel said the dismissal left her feeling devastated and she became depressed. She subsequently experienced marital difficulties and, for a short period of time, separated from her husband.
The question before the tribunal was whether or not Mohamed refused to continue to employ Kimbriel because of her pregnancy. Under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code the burden of proof is essentially on the defendant to prove he did not discriminate on the basis of a prohibited ground. Under the code, discrimination based on pregnancy falls under discrimination based on sex.
The tribunal did not accept evidence from Mohamed that Kimbriel had been moved to the office manager position. It accepted Kimbriel’s testimony that she was never informed about taking on either the new title or the new role. The tribunal’s view was the new position of office manager was contemplated but never implemented.
Given that the tribunal decided Kimbriel was a receptionist, it concluded there was a contravention of the code by Mohamed in not permitting her to return to work in November 2000 because the basic setup of the office — three receptionists — had not changed.
Kimbriel began looking for another job, and on April 1, 2001, was offered a receptionist position. She turned it down because it only paid $8 per hour. She accepted another position on Feb. 1, 2002. Kimbriel was seeking compensation for the time between Nov. 1, 2000 and April 1, 2001 of $11 per hour and $3 per hour between April 1, 2001 and Feb. 1, 2002, which was the difference in pay had she taken the job at $8 per hour.
The tribunal concluded she should only be compensated for the time up to April 1, 2001. Each of the three receptionists earned $1,442.26 during December 1999, and the tribunal used that figure in determining an award. It calculated lost wages at $7,111.30. But since Mohamed had already paid $785.43 as partial compensation, the balance owing was $6,325.87.
The code also has a provision that allows the tribunal to order compensation of up to $10,000 to a person who has suffered with respect to her feelings, dignity or self-respect. The tribunal tacked on $2,000 to compensate Kimbriel, for a total award of $8,325.87.
The decision by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in Kimbriel v. Mohamed underlines the fact that employers cannot discriminate against persons because of their sex, and discriminating against a pregnant employee constitutes sex discrimination.
Sandra Lee Kimbriel was hired as a receptionist for Dr. Hassan Mohamed, a cardiologist with a practice in Cornwall, Sask., in February 1999.
Kimbriel’s duties included booking appointments for Mohamed, answering the telephone, opening mail, preparing patient’s charts, performing electrocardiograms, preparing information for her wages and the wages of Sharon Lennox (the other doctor’s receptionist), ordering supplies for the office, filing and some preliminary billing.
In March a third doctor joined the practice and in September a third receptionist, Candace Frasz, was hired by the new doctor. Later that month the three doctors entered into a new arrangement with respect to their medical practices.
The exact nature of the new arrangement wasn’t clear, but the tribunal said it appears there was an equal sharing of certain expenses, including receptionist salaries and office rent, that started in November. The office also moved from the fifth floor of the building to the fourth floor around the same time.
Mohamed said he asked Kimbriel to assume the position of office manager sometime in the fall. But Kimbriel said she was never told she was given this position and never performed the duties of an office manager, which would include being a supervisor for the other two receptionists.
At the tribunal hearing, Mohamed said he was unsatisfied with her performance as a receptionist. He said he had a high rate of cancellations from patients which he suspected was due to her failure to telephone and remind patients of their appointments, she lied to him on a number of occasions, she was lazy and did not complete certain tasks.
Despite these feelings Mohamed didn’t oppose her alleged selection as the office manager when it was discussed among the three doctors. He said that in the fall of 1999 Kimbriel no longer had a role in taking his patients into the examining rooms and that Frasz was his receptionist. Kimbriel said her duties did not change, though Frasz did assist her with some of her duties. But that was because she was training to cover for Kimbriel’s maternity leave.
In late December Kimbriel suffered complications from her pregnancy and was required to take sick leave until she gave birth on May 1, 2000. When Kimbriel told Mohamed she had to leave for medical reasons in December, she said he was angry and upset and said it had left him “in a bad position.” After the birth, she told him she would be returning in November.
At the time of her departure, Kimbriel was earning $11 per hour. In the short-term, Frasz took over Kimbriel’s duties, working for two doctors. At the beginning of March, Lennox — the other receptionist — left the practice and a receptionist was hired to take her place. In July Frasz resigned and a new receptionist was hired to take her place.
Mohamed told the court the three doctors concluded their new business arrangement was not working in August and each physician would be responsible for the hiring and paying of their own receptionist and paying their own expenses.
With the new arrangement, there would be no office manager. As a result of this, and his dissatisfaction with Kimbriel when she was his receptionist, he intended to dismiss her shortly after she returned to work. He hired a receptionist, Paula Empringham, in August.
In October Kimbriel phoned Mohamed to discuss her return date. She was willing and able to return to work on Nov. 1. During that call, Mohamed told her she no longer had a job. This was confirmed in a letter dated Nov. 2. He gave her two-weeks’ pay.
Kimbriel said the dismissal left her feeling devastated and she became depressed. She subsequently experienced marital difficulties and, for a short period of time, separated from her husband.
The question before the tribunal was whether or not Mohamed refused to continue to employ Kimbriel because of her pregnancy. Under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code the burden of proof is essentially on the defendant to prove he did not discriminate on the basis of a prohibited ground. Under the code, discrimination based on pregnancy falls under discrimination based on sex.
The tribunal did not accept evidence from Mohamed that Kimbriel had been moved to the office manager position. It accepted Kimbriel’s testimony that she was never informed about taking on either the new title or the new role. The tribunal’s view was the new position of office manager was contemplated but never implemented.
Given that the tribunal decided Kimbriel was a receptionist, it concluded there was a contravention of the code by Mohamed in not permitting her to return to work in November 2000 because the basic setup of the office — three receptionists — had not changed.
Kimbriel began looking for another job, and on April 1, 2001, was offered a receptionist position. She turned it down because it only paid $8 per hour. She accepted another position on Feb. 1, 2002. Kimbriel was seeking compensation for the time between Nov. 1, 2000 and April 1, 2001 of $11 per hour and $3 per hour between April 1, 2001 and Feb. 1, 2002, which was the difference in pay had she taken the job at $8 per hour.
The tribunal concluded she should only be compensated for the time up to April 1, 2001. Each of the three receptionists earned $1,442.26 during December 1999, and the tribunal used that figure in determining an award. It calculated lost wages at $7,111.30. But since Mohamed had already paid $785.43 as partial compensation, the balance owing was $6,325.87.
The code also has a provision that allows the tribunal to order compensation of up to $10,000 to a person who has suffered with respect to her feelings, dignity or self-respect. The tribunal tacked on $2,000 to compensate Kimbriel, for a total award of $8,325.87.
