Blatz v. 4L Communications

2015 - Manitoba Human Rights Board of Adjudication

In June 2007, Audrey Blatz was hired by 4L Communications in a management role to act as "the right hand" of the owner of the company, who was stepping back from active management. She was dismissed in April 2009. Ms. Blatz made a complaint to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, arguing that her dismissal was wrongful and motivated by her pregnancy.

At her hearing, Ms. Blatz testified that she successfully oversaw the opening of a new 4L retail outlet in September 2997, and was rewarded with a promotion and wage increase. She was invited to join in a new company profit-sharing plan in late 2008. In February 2009, she informed 4L that she was pregnant, and as a result of pregnancy complications, she had to reduce her workload. She went on a vacation in March 2009, and when she returned, she was dismissed. Ms. Blatz testified that 4L had expressed no concerns about or dissatisfaction with her work performance until that point. She argued that 4L dismissed her because of her pregnancy and to avoid work disruption. She argued that this was a contravention of section 14 of The Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination unless it is based upon "bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation."

4L argued that the dismissal had nothing to do with Ms. Blatz' pregnancy. Witnesses testified that Ms. Blatz' personality and management style did not suit 4L's corporate culture. The company operated informally like a family. Ms. Blatz was more formal and hierarchical. She introduced changes that employees found jarring. She also repeatedly undertook to do tasks and failed to follow through. Her statement "I'll get back to you" became a running joke among staff. The most significant incident occurred just prior to her vacation to Orlando. She undertook to reconcile a set of MTS records. 4L suffered losses of revenue when these records were not reconciled. Ms. Blatz told 4L that the reconciliation was completed before she left on vacation. However, while she was away on vacation, MTS called to say that the reconciliation was never received.

In its ruling, the Human Rights tribunal said the issues were as follows:

Did the pregnancy of Ms. Blatz form any part of the reason for which 4L decided to terminate her employment?

If so, was the discrimination based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation?

If there was a violation of the Code without such bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications, what remedial order should be made?

Based on the evidence, the tribunal ruled that the dismissal was not motivated by Ms. Blatz' pregnancy, it was motivated by other factors. Accordingly, Ms. Blatz' complaint was dismissed. As a result of its ruling on the first issue, the tribunal did not rule on issues b. and c.