倍可親

如果你在安大略消費或就業受到他人的歧視,該怎麼辦?

作者:黃雲峰律師  於 2018-5-17 09:25 發表於 最熱鬧的華人社交網路--貝殼村

通用分類:法律相關|已有1評論

如果你在安大略,不論是在消費場所或工作場合中,感受到他人的各類歧視(性別,種族,年紀等)該如何保護自己的合法權益?如果你是一生意業主,你的員工歧視了客戶,你該如何處理呢?專業人權訴訟律師的這篇文章或許對你有幫助。


題目:最近的安大略人權法庭( Human Rights Tribunal )對所有僱主作出強烈警告

作者: 海納.比斯特費爾德律師      翻譯:Benjamin Shi

在最近的Wickham 訴Hong Shing中餐館(2018 HRTO 500)(https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2018/2018canlii34656/2018canlii34656.html)一案中,安大略省人權法庭判決:市中心的這家中餐館必須支付10,000美元給一位曾被餐館員工要求提前支付餐費的顧客。

當時餐廳要求一起來就餐的四個黑人,必須四人提前支付餐費,然後才能用餐,而同時在餐廳就餐的其他客人卻沒有相同要求。雖然餐廳為自己辯護,解釋說它有這樣的政策來防止用餐后逃單。但法庭不被辯方說服。法庭認定,根據「安大略人權法」中有關種族,膚色和種族歧視的條款,這家中餐館已構成對申訴人的歧視行為。

除了就業,住房和合約外,「安大略人權法」還涵蓋了商品,服務和服務設施等更廣泛的領域。當企業或商家向公眾出售產品或提供服務時,僱主有責任確保其員工尊重每個人。

雖然公開的種族歧視行為已經在安大略得到了相當程度的制止,各個方面的宣傳上也很普及,不過這種時常出現的細微差別待遇,也常使許多不同膚色人感到不安或甚至歧視。

這個案子對所有僱主來說都是一個很好的提醒,在對所有員工的培訓時,無論員工人數多少。僱主都要對其僱員在其工作期間時的行為承擔替代責任。但除了了解「人權法」規定的僱主責任之外,對員工這方面培訓的需求也在不斷增長,這也要求員工對隱性偏見進行教育。

雖然被訴者認為他們的行為不是出於種族偏見的動機,但根據常識,即使你不是一個種族歧視主義者,我們所有人都在不同程度上,存在對其他人的偏見。我們可能會根據他們的外貌,性別或年齡來判斷他人,甚至我們自己都沒有意識到這些偏見。

有許多行為受到「人權法」的保護,這可能不是許多僱員關注的焦點。比如一些需要輔助動物的顧客,餐館不能拒絕帶動物而阻止其用餐;女性不能因為母乳餵養而受到歧視。

對任何僱主來說,培訓其員工(以及自身!)承認無意識的偏見是一項非常重要的工作。這不是在工資單上扣除因種族主義行為所付上的代價,而是一起認識到未來我們如何能夠更好地做出一個正確公平的判斷。

最近在費城星巴克咖啡發生的一起公開的種族歧視事件中,員工向兩名坐著等朋友的黑人男子報了警,結果引起社會輿論的巨大反響,星巴克迅速採取行動,為美國各地175,000名員工安排了種族敏感度和無意識偏見培訓。

此次安省人權法庭的裁決也為僱主提供了另一個重要提醒:僱主對發生的任何人權投訴不能置之不理,如果投訴沒有得到及時答覆,被投訴人可能會被認定違約並被視為已接受投訴人提出的所有指控。

該中餐館沒有按時為其投訴辯護,也沒有參加聽證會,最後導致了大量對自己不利的負面宣傳。在一般情況下,人權法庭會要求雙方首先通過調解解決投訴的問題,而且調解過程是保護隱私的,任何達成的協議通常都會包括不披露條款,禁止投訴細節和解決方案公布等。通過斡旋或出席聽證會,被訴者是有機會減少其在公眾形象的損害。

每個安大略省的居民當他們感到自己受歧視時,可以獲得免費的法律資源;而僱主或企業主則不一樣,作為企業主,如果客戶或員工向您提出任何可能與人權法則有關的擔憂時,無論是產假,解僱經常生病者,公眾場合不合適的笑話或任何其他問題的人與「守則」基礎相關,一旦提出問題,企業和專門從事人權法律的律師進行磋商就非常重要。但在此之前,每個僱主和企業主必須首先確保他們的培訓和雇傭政策符合「安大略人權法」。專業人權律師的意見將為您提供指導性方案,並確保您的員工或客戶有一個安全放心的工作及服務環境。


作者簡介: 海納.比斯特費爾德(Hannah Biesterfeld)律師多年訴訟律師經驗,也精通德語,法語等多種歐洲語言,曾任職於加拿大航空,歐共體人權研究中心,安省政府人權事務委員會專職律師,現任職於黃雲峰訴訟律師事務所,擅長人權訴訟,雇傭關係訴訟及商業訴訟等。



Recent Human Rights Tribunal Decision a Strong Warning to Employers

In Wickham v. Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant (2018 HRTO 500) (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2018/2018canlii34656/2018canlii34656.html), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the downtown Chinese restaurant must pay $10,000 to a patron who had been asked by its staff to pay for his food in advance. 

The restaurant asked a group of four, who all identify as Black, to pay for their meals in advance, even though no one else in the restaurant was asked to do the same. The restaurant defended itself, explaining that it had such a policy to prevent dining and dashing. The Tribunal was not persuaded by the defence.

The Tribunal found that the respondent restaurant had subjected the complainant to discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code on the basis of place of race, colour, and ethnic origin. 

Besides employment, housing, and contracts, the Ontario Human Rights Code also covers goods, services, and facilities. When selling goods or providing services to the public, an employer is responsible for ensuring that its staff treats everyone with respect. 

While this case garnered considerable publicity for such a blatant act of racial discrimination, there are frequent instances of more subtle differential treatment that can leave people of colour feeling unwelcome.

This is a good reminder for employers that training for all staff is so important, not matter how few employees. An employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees while they are at work. But beyond learning what an employer』s responsibilities are under the Human Rights Code, there is an ever-growing demand for training that also educates staff on implicit bias. 

The respondents felt that their actions were not motivated by racial bias, but one does not have to identify as a racist to discriminate. All of us harbour preconceptions about others. We may judge others based on their appearance, gender, or age without even realizing it. 

There are many activities that are protected by the Human Rights Code that may not be on the radar of many employees. For example, customers with service animals cannot be turned away, even from establishments that serve food, and women cannot be discriminated against for breastfeeding.

It is an invaluable exercise for any employer to train its employees (and itself!) to recognize unconscious biases. It is not a matter of rooting out and terminating the closet racist on the payroll, but of recognizing together how we can all do better to confront the judgments we all make. 

Starbucks recently addressed their own highly publicized incident of racial discrimination when employees in Philadelphia called the police on two black men who were seated, waiting for a friend before they ordered coffee. Starbucks moved quickly to arrange for racial sensitivity and unconscious bias training for 175,000 employees across the United States. 

This Tribunal decision also delivers another important reminder for employers. Human Rights complaints cannot be swept under the rug. If a complaint is not responded to in a timely manner, the respondent can be noted in default and deemed to have accepted all the allegations made by the complainant. 

The restaurant did not defend the complaint on time and did not participate in the hearing. The Tribunal generally requires that complaints be mediated first. In this case, it appears that didn』t happen. Mediations are private, and any agreement reached will usually include non-disclosure terms, prohibiting the details of the complaint and the settlement from being made public.

By not mediating and not appearing at the hearing, the respondents not only deprived themselves of the opportunity to limit the damage, but opened themselves up to considerable unwanted publicity. 

Members of the public have access to free legal resources in Ontario, if they believe they have been discriminated against. The same is not true of employers or business owners. 

As a business owner, if customers, clients, or employees come to you with any concerns that you believe may be related to a human rights ground, whether it』s maternity leave, terminating someone who often calls in sick, inappropriate jokes, or any other issue related to a Code ground, it is important to consult with a lawyer who specializes in human rights law as soon as the issue is raised.

But before that happens, every employer and business owner must first ensure that their training and policies are compliant with the Ontario Human Rights Code. A consultation with a human rights lawyer will provide you with the tools and guidance to ensure your employees feel safe and your customers leave happy.



黃雲峰訴訟律師事務所聯絡方法Rebecca Huang* and Associates Barristers
330 Bay Street, Suite 311
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5H 2S8
電話 : 416.306.8450
傳真 : 416.306.8451
*(Rebecca Huang Professional Corporation) 提供法律服務
更多黃雲峰訴訟律師事務所信息>>https://www.rh-law.ca/



高興

感動

同情

搞笑
1

難過

拍磚

支持
1

鮮花

剛表態過的朋友 (2 人)

發表評論 評論 (1 個評論)

回復 休里 2018-5-17 23:12
作為一個移民國家,各種族之間的和陸相處尤為重要,美國對種族歧視現象零容忍。這個中餐館的工作人員不懂法,只是怕別人吃霸王餐,得個教訓吧。

facelist doodle 塗鴉板

您需要登錄后才可以評論 登錄 | 註冊

黃雲峰律師最受歡迎的博文

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2024-3-29 06:14

返回頂部