A Jewish public servant has won a major human rights victory against the federal government after complaining that her workplace at the Ottawa headquarters of Passport Canada was poisoned by antisemitism.
In a stinging decision, federal adjudicator Michele Pineau ruled that some of Valéry LaBranche’s fellow employees discriminated against her because of her adherence to the laws of Judaism , notably, leaving early each Friday to observe the Jewish sabbath and taking Jewish holidays , and that her bosses did little or nothing to help her.
LaBranche, who said she was deeply traumatized by her experience, had to seek medical treatment and take time away from work.
She launched an internal grievance against her department in January 2007, which the federal government rejected the following October. She then took her case to adjudication to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
According to the adjudicator’s decision obtained by the Citizen, LaBranche became ill and unable to work after three anonymous antisemitic messages, including one e-mail, were sent to her superiors.
The first, sent on Dec. 1, 2006, read: “Be aware of Mrs. LaBranche. She is a Mossad agent.” A second, sent two weeks later, read: “The Jew sucks your blood. Don’t fall into her trap. You will make her go swiftly or we will make her go slowly and painfully! It’s your choice!!!”
The e-mail, sent via the New York Post website NYPost.com, was much longer and amounted to a character attack against LaBranche.
The RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Foreign Affairs department were unable to determine who composed and sent the e-mail.
Adjudicator Michele Pineau said it was clear LaBranche considered the sender to be “one of a small group of people at Passport Canada who had intimate knowledge of the personal information it contained.”
LaBranche asked her bosses for protection, but they told her to report her concerns to the police.
“The grievor (LaBranche) was left with the impression that the agency was more concerned with protecting its reputation than with her well-being,” wrote the adjudicator.
LaBranche, who converted to Judaism in 1997, was seconded to Passport Canada from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in October 2005 to lead a project related to security between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. At the outset, she had an informal arrangement that she could leave early on Fridays and take time off for Jewish holidays. Under the collective agreement, the government must make a reasonable effort to accommodate an employee’s religious obligations, but those who do take time away from work must repay the hours within six months of taking the time off.
According to the adjudication, LaBranche typically accumulated the time in advance, but ran into difficulty when an administrative assistant was hired to work for three Passport Canada directors, one of whom was LaBranche’s boss. LaBranche complained that the assistant began questioning her right to take religious holidays or leave early on Friday and demanded she complete forms.
The assistant told LaBranche she and others had decided she was isolating herself by not participating in “dress-down Fridays” or outings to restaurants. “As an observant Jew,” wrote Pineau, “she did not own clothing in keeping with dress-down
Fridays and … her dietary restrictions did not allow her to eat at the popular restaurants chosen by her colleagues.”
LaBranche complained about her subordinate and her boss responded by asking her to explain the meaning of her observances to her colleagues. LaBranche agreed, but said she felt deeply humiliated by the request.
In late 2006, the first anonymous note arrived.
Although the government extended LaBranche’s secondment by six months to April 20, 2007, she tried and failed to win a competition for the job. Her bosses ended her secondment in February 2007 while she was on stress-related sick leave.
Pineau slammed the government for its “inappropriate” treatment of LaBranche.
“The severance of the grievor’s employment after receiving anonymous correspondence was not only another indication that the employer condoned the discrimination, but it was the culminating event of its discriminatory behaviour.”
In its defence, the government said the termination of LaBranche’s secondment was a coincidence and unrelated to the complaints she had made about discrimination.
LaBranche is seeking damages for pain and suffering, other costs, and an admission by the government that her rights were violated. Pineau ruled LaBranche was telling the truth and deserves compensation. She gave the two sides three months to reach an agreement on compensation, after which she will impose one.
|
|
