Harassment as a form of discrimination

St. Mary's Road
Winnipeg, Manitoba
December 8, 1982

Dianna Janzen and Tracy Govereau thought the toughest part about working as waitresses at Pharos restaurant would be dealing with a few difficult customers. As it turned out, it was Tommy the cook that made their work intolerable.

The cook was verbally abusive, and he grabbed the waitresses in rude and inappropriate ways. When Dianna and Tracy resisted his sexual advances, he told them to shut up or be fired. He yelled at them in front of staff and criticized their work. When they complained to the boss, they were told that nothing could be done. Eventually Dianna was forced to quit, and Tracy was fired because of her "attitude."

Both women filed complaints under the Manitoba Human Rights Act, and the case eventually made its way to Ottawa.

Supreme Court of Canada Building
Ottawa, Canada
May 4, 1989

The question before the court was, "Is sexual harassment a form of sex discrimination?"

The court's answer was unanimous: Yes. Sexual harassment in the workplace was defined as "any unwanted sexual behaviour that negatively affects the work environment or causes the victim to suffer unfavorable job related consequences." That certainly fit this case. Tommy's rude attention was certainly undesired and negatively affected the waitresses working conditions.

So Dianna and Tracy had been sexually harassed, but how was this sexual discrimination?

Sexual harassment was found to be a form of discrimination because only the female employees ran the risk of being harassed. The men who worked as waiters, cashiers, or bus boys had never been harassed. Dianna and Tracy, on the other hand, had to put up with harassment only because they were women. In other words, women were treated differently than men at Pharos strictly because they were women - and that was discrimination.

What did Tommy get as a result of all this? A tip: Keep your hands and comments to yourself.

Quotable quote

"Sexual harassment in the workplace may be broadly defined as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse job related consequences for the victims of the harassment."

Brian Dickson Chief Justice of Canadian Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd.

Did you know?

In 1987, before the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its ruling, the Manitoba Human Rights Act was replaced by the Human Rights Code. Section 19 of the new code expressly prohibits sex discrimination like the kind that took place here. But, because it was passed after the events of this case took place, the new Code didn't apply to this case.

Want To Know More?

See:
Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd.
s. 6 Manitoba Human Rights Act
s. 19 Manitoba Human Rights Code