den should be on the CRA to create a safe
and harassment-free workplace, not on the
victim of harassment, said the board.
As a result, the CRA failed to properly
address the sexual harassment in its after-
math by not implementing a satisfactory
solution, leaving Doro exposed to more
harassment. is amounted to consent of
the continuing harassment and a failure to
take adequate steps to prevent the sexual
harassment, said the board.
"I find that the CRA viewed Ms. Doro's
desire for a safe workplace as a burden that
she needed to solve herself by either mov-
ing her workplace to a new city or to a dif-
ferent floor or to stay home and telework,"
the board said. "Ms. Doro testified as to the
terrible stress and fear this arrangement
caused her as she had reported the harass-
ment, spent a brief period home ill due to
stress, and then returned to work to find
her workstation moved under the new ar-
rangement that had been dictated by (the
division chief )."
e board noted that the CRA had poli-
cies and a respectful workplace campaign,
but there was no evidence Doro's harasser
received or read any harassment preven-
tion awareness or training material, or
attended any workshops. Given the harm
caused to Doro by her supervisor, the
board suggested both the CRA and the
union put more effort into sexual harass-
ment prevention and dissemination of in-
formation of the consequences of harass-
ment before it happens.
On top of the CRA's failure to properly
address the harassment of Doro and its
aftermath, the board found the length of
time it took for the independent investi-
gator to reach a conclusion was too much
— during the two-year process, Doro had
to endure uncertainty and additional
harassment, exacerbating her stress and
causing her to take additional sick leave
lasting several months.
e CRA was ordered to pay Doro
$20,000 in damages for pain and suffer-
ing stemming from the discrimination to
which it subjected her and $20,000 in spe-
cial damages for "the reckless manner in
which it handled the initial investigation of
her complaint that resulted in her being left
in the immediate proximity of her harasser
and that allowed him to continue harassing
her." In addition, the agency had to fork over
another $22,995 in out-of-pocket expenses
Doro claimed she spent on trauma coun-
selling and other treatment for the anxiety
and depression she suffered as a result of
the harassment.
For more information see:
• Doro v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2019
CarswellNat 691 (Fed. Pub. Sector Lab.
Rel. & Emp. Bd.).
Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019
April
17,
2019
|
Canadian
Employment
Law
Today
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jeffrey R. Smith
Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian
Employment Law Today. He can be reached at
jeffrey.r.smith@thomsonreuters.com, or visit
www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information.
CREDIT: ANDREY_POPOV/SHUTTERSTOCK
