| Harassment and Discrimination |  |
Previous
Sexual harassment is one kind of harassment . . . in which unwelcome conduct or comments of a sexual nature create harm for another. Generally speaking, there are two “brands” of sexual harassment:
· “quid pro quo” in which the harasser leverages his or her power to pressure or extract sexual favours from another. The harm is generally in the form of actual or threatened economic loss. In the university setting, the loss may be in the form of a good grade or evaluation. For example, the harasser bargains with something of value – a good grade, a prime residency, or a job – in exchange for sex or sexual attention. An alternative example is where the harasser threatens with negative action or consequence IF sexual favours or attention are not available.
· “Hostile environment” refers to a workplace or classroom, in which there is a generalized tension, rooted in sexual power, and where such tension has a negative impact on a group or an individual. Unlike quid pro quo harassment, the harm of a hostile environment is usually not economic or tangible, but is rather manifest in the form of a toxic or oppressive work environment. One example of the sexualized hostile environment is where lewd pictures of women or men are displayed in a cafeteria or work stations, fostering a sense of humiliation and objectification of individuals because of their sex or gender [1].
But, what if the harm experienced by the individual or group was the result of an “innocent” joke or comment?
The law looks to IMPACT not INTENT. So, even if the “harasser” did not intend to be intimidating, demeaning, or otherwise hurtful, if the person on the receiving end experienced the behaviour as harmful, this may be a case of harassment. To more fully flush out the impact of the incident, case law instructs us to query: whether a reasonable person in this situation would likely experience such behaviour as harmful
And, what if the harassing behaviour occurred once? Do we need to establish that there is a pattern of behaviour in order for it to be “harassment”?
The behaviour need not be repeated in order for it to constitute harassment. Again, we look to impact on the person who has been on the receiving end of the harassing behaviour. A single event, especially an egregious one, is enough to create harm.
Crossing boundaries is a prerequisite to sexual and other harassment
Within a medical program, discrimination & harassment may arise in:
Employment (faculty, residents, support staff)
Services (students)
Patients & public
Employers are vicariously liable for the harassment and discriminatory acts committed by their employees.
Discrimination may show up in:
Policies, Rules, Standards, Practices, Services
Duty to Accommodate if related to the job or the course, in good faith, and is do-able without undue hardship.
Religious observance, Disability, Family status (REASONABLE goes both ways)
Question on harassment
_________________________________
1. Key Court Cases on Sexual Harassment: Canada (Treasury Board) v. Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84, 40 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 75 N.R. 303, 8 C.H.R.R. D/4326, 87 C.L.L.C. para. 17,025; Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, 59 D.L.R. (4th) 352, 95 N.R. 81, [1989] 4 W.W.R. 39, 10 C.H.R.R. D/6205; Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) and O’Malley v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, 23 D.L.R. (4th) 321, 64 N.R. 161, 7 C.H.R.R. D/3102, 9 C.C.E.L. 185
