Human rights complaint filed by former City of Coquitlam employee over workplace discrimination is dismissed

A former City of Coquitlam employee who alleged workplace discrimination based on family status and disability has had his complaint dismissed by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal before it could proceed to a full hearing.

In a decision issued Feb. 5, tribunal member Kathleen Smith ruled the complaint filed by longtime city employee Lee Hewitt had “no reasonable prospect of success,” granting the city’s application to dismiss the case.

Hewitt had worked for the city for 27 years as a facilities management coordinator before retiring in 2021. He alleged the municipality discriminated against him after he was investigated in connection with misconduct involving his nephew, who also worked for the city.

He claimed he developed mental health issues as a result of bullying and a toxic workplace environment.

The tribunal ultimately concluded that while Hewitt may have experienced workplace stress and mental health symptoms, the evidence showed the city had legitimate reasons for its actions and had taken reasonable steps to accommodate him.

Family status claim rejected

One part of Hewitt’s complaint centred on the city’s investigation into his conduct during a workplace probe involving his nephew.

According to the decision, the city began investigating the nephew in 2020 for alleged misconduct. During that investigation, officials became concerned Hewitt may have improperly coached him about the investigation while serving in a supervisory role.

The tribunal heard that the city called Hewitt to a meeting on July 10, 2020 to address those concerns and later issued him a non-disciplinary “letter of expectations” outlining standards related to conflicts of interest.

Hewitt argued the meeting and letter were effectively disciplinary and occurred only because of his family relationship with the employee under investigation.

But Smith found the evidence showed the city’s concerns stemmed from specific information obtained during the nephew’s investigation – not the fact the two men were related.

“To be successful Mr. Hewitt would need to provide some evidence to support a reasonable inference that the city treated him adversely, at least in part, due to his relationship with the Nephew,” Smith said.

Instead, she concluded the city was “reasonably certain to establish a non-discriminatory explanation” for its actions – namely concerns that a supervisor may have discussed a confidential investigation with an employee involved in it.

Because Hewitt did not provide evidence linking the city’s actions to his family status, the tribunal ruled that portion of the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.

City met duty to accommodate

Hewitt also alleged discrimination based on disability, saying anxiety and depression stemming from workplace bullying forced him onto medical leave and ultimately into retirement.

Medical records submitted to the tribunal indicated Hewitt experienced significant anxiety related to workplace events and was receiving treatment including counselling and medication.

Smith said this evidence was sufficient to meet the low threshold required to establish the possibility of a mental disability under the Human Rights Code.

The tribunal noted that documentation showed Hewitt had severe anxiety symptoms and depression that affected his ability to work for months.

However, the key issue was not whether he experienced those symptoms, but whether the city failed to accommodate them.

The tribunal concluded the city had taken reasonable steps to support Hewitt’s return to work.

Evidence showed the municipality approved several months of paid sick leave and attempted to arrange meetings to discuss accommodations. It also proposed measures such as temporarily changing Hewitt’s reporting structure and relocating his workspace so he would not interact with the supervisor he had accused of wrongdoing.

But the tribunal found Hewitt repeatedly declined to meet to discuss those proposals or provide updated medical information explaining why they would not work.

Smith wrote the city had taken “extraordinary steps” to address barriers to his return, while Hewitt insisted he could not return until his allegations against the supervisor were substantiated.

Ultimately, the tribunal concluded the city was likely to establish at a hearing that it accommodated Hewitt to the point of undue hardship, meeting the legal test required under human rights law.

After months of medical leave and disputes over workplace conditions, Hewitt resigned in April 2021 with retirement effective May 1.

In his correspondence with the city at the time, Hewitt said he felt he had been forced to retire because the workplace issues he had raised were never resolved and his benefits were expiring. He filed the human rights complaint two months later.

Under the Human Rights Code, the tribunal has authority to dismiss complaints that have no reasonable prospect of success without holding a full hearing.

Smith said that threshold had been met in this case.

“Where Mr. Hewitt’s allegation is based on speculation and the city is reasonably certain to establish a non-discriminatory explanation for its conduct, I am satisfied that the family status allegation has no reasonable prospect of success,” she said.