Vancouver travel agent awarded $2,500 after being laid off during pregnancy

Worker laid off just two weeks before her maternity leave

A Vancouver travel agent was awarded $2,500 for injury to her dignity and self respect by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after she was laid off just two weeks before she was slated to start her maternity leave.

In August 1998 Corene Dance started working for Anza Travel Ltd. as a travel agent at its Vancouver office.

She was paid a semi-monthly advance of $1,666.67 against her commission earnings. In the months leading to her layoff, and until Feb. 28, 2003, she was also paid a monthly team leader bonus of $830.

In early January 2003 Dance told her supervisor that she was pregnant. After that, she said, her relationship with her supervisor and with Graham Boshell, Anza’s sole director and president, changed. Dance felt they were stalling in answering questions about her maternity leave and her eventual return to Anza.

For example, Dance sent an e-mail to her supervisor asking about how her clients would be dealt with during her absence, but received nothing concrete in reply. It was her impression that Boshell was angry with her for not letting him know sooner that she was planning on taking maternity leave.

Dance said she thought her pregnancy and pending maternity leave were also taken into account when a decision was made to discontinue her team leader compensation, as she was the only team leader in the country to have that pay cancelled.

On March 31, 2003, Dance gave formal written notice that she was going to take a one-year maternity leave on May 1, 2003. Shortly before April 15, she heard rumours that she was going to be laid off. On April 15, her supervisor confirmed in writing that Dance was indeed going to be laid off. The supervisor blamed the layoff on a downturn in the travel industry. Since it was to be a temporary layoff, Dance would not be paid for severance.

When Dance protested her layoff to her supervisor, she was referred to Boshell because he had made the decision. When she spoke to him, she said he would not give a direct answer to any of her questions about what was happening.

But during the conversation, Boshell told Dance that, if she wanted, she could take her maternity leave early and avoid being laid off. But Dance refused to start her leave early. On April 16, Dance’s supervisor sent her an e-mail stating that, because she refused to take early maternity leave, she was laid off effective April 15.

On July 11, 2003, Boshell wrote Dance recalling her to work as of July 16, 2003. The letter went on to note that should she decide to continue with her maternity leave instead of returning to work, she should confirm when she would end her maternity leave and be able to go back to work. Dance did not respond to this letter.

Dance said the manner and timing in which she was laid off was very stressful. The layoff was unexpected and, in her view, unjustified. As a senior staff member who had been a team leader for an extended period, she was taken by surprise that she would be the one let go from the Vancouver office.

The tribunal said the onus was on Dance to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To prove that, Dance needed only to show that her pregnancy was a factor in her employer’s conduct.

“It does not need to be the sole or overriding factor,” the tribunal said.

The tribunal said there was no doubt she was pregnant, that her team leader pay was cancelled, that she was laid off two weeks prior to the start of her leave and that during her maternity leave she did not receive a cash bonus that was awarded to her. The question, then, was whether Dance had established that her pregnancy was a factor in Anza’s decision regarding these events. The tribunal concluded it was.

“Ms. Dance was a long-time employee of Anza, and was given increasing responsibilities as time went on,” said the tribunal. “After she told (Anza) about her pregnancy, she was the only team leader to lose that designation. When (Anza) decided to layoff staff, instead of choosing to layoff one of the more junior staff members, (it) chose her. She was the only agent not to receive a bonus in cash. The only factor that distinguished her from the other employees at Anza was her pregnancy and subsequent maternity leave. In my view, that is why, at least in part, she was a target for the actions of (Anza.)”

Since Dance had proven a prima facie case of discrimination, the onus then shifted to the employer to dispute that fact. According to Dance, Anza ceased operations in March 2004. Neither Boshell nor anyone representing Anza turned up at the tribunal hearing. Therefore, the tribunal ruled in favour of Dance.

The tribunal settled on a figure of $2,500 for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect. It also awarded her $2,911 for lost wages and $500 for the bonus she should have received.

For more information see:

Dance v. Anza Travel and Boshell, 2006 BCHRT 196 (B.C. H.R.T.)

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!