VANCOUVER — The Independent Investigations Office of B.C. has been ordered to pay $51,800 for discriminating against an Indigenous woman after it offered her a job as an investigator — then withdrew the offer — because of what it said was her “adversarial” emails and “rude” behaviour.
The Metis woman, who was identified as D.S., had applied for a job as an investigator with the civilian police oversight agency in spring 2018. She was given an employment offer in May 2018, subject to the completion of enhanced security screenings, which included a polygraph test.
But based on D.S.’s interactions with the polygraph examiner and other staffers, the IIO said it determined D.S. lacked the tact, diplomacy and interpersonal skills needed in the job, and wouldn’t be a “good fit” for the investigation team.
In a July 11 decision, B.C. Human Rights Tribunal member Shannon Beckett said there is evidence supporting the agency’s argument it had a non-discriminatory basis for withdrawing the employment offer.
“Despite this, I find that D.S.’s race and sex were also a factor in the decision to rescind,” she said. “I find it more likely than not that the IIO viewed D.S. through the stereotypical lens of a demanding, suspicious Indigenous woman, and that these views informed the decision to rescind the job offer.”
At D.S.’s first polygraph test conducted by a former Vancouver police officer, she expressed surprise the session was being recorded and asked how the results would be stored. She said the examiner got “mad” at her questions. When she asked to talk to someone in human resources about the storage and retention of the data, she said he acted angrily and “slammed his notebook down on the table” and told her to wait in the hallway. The examiner denied acting angry or frustrated.
D.S. expressed her concerns about how the personal information would be stored to IIO staff. One of them later testified she felt D.S. was trying to get out of the test. D.S. said she knew the test was mandatory and wasn’t trying to get out of it.
During the second polygraph test, the same examiner made inappropriate comments to her, testified D.S., including saying that women were better liars than men; asking what she was thinking about when he asked her if she engaged in illegal sex or drugs because her readings “shot up;” and saying many First Nations people in Bella Coola were obese and consumed pop and potato chips after she told him she had left a previous job to look after her father who had diabetes.
The examiner, who also testified during the five-day hearing in May and June 2023, disputed the comments. He said it was standard practice to follow up on questions where a person had a reaction.
In email communication with IIO staff, D.S. expressed her concern about the “lax security measures” surrounding the storage and retention of her personal information, which she was told would stay in a hard drive in the home of the examiner for six months and then destroyed. D.S. wanted the IIO to be the one to store and destroy the records.
IIO staff began to raise concerns about D.S.’s history of short-term employment, her interaction with IIO staff and the “fit as to her personality,” the tribunal heard.
In the letter withdrawing the job offer, then-IIO chief Ronald MacDonald said D.S.’s communication and interaction style have been “overly adversarial” and “often disrespectful,” and her interactions with support staff were seen as “rude and demanding.” About a month later, on Aug. 15, D.S. filed the complaint with the human rights tribunal.
The IIO argued that the examiner’s comments could be characterized as “in poor taste and insensitive” but doesn’t rise to the level of discrimination.
But D.S. disagreed, saying the polygraph incidents left her “shocked” and that the examiner’s comments and questions indicated he viewed her through the “stereotypical lens of Indigenous women being more likely to drink, do drugs and engage in the sex trade.”
“He managed to cover all the insidious stereotypes, and I can’t think of anything that drives a dagger in the hearts of Indigenous women more than these comments,” said D.S. in her submissions. “It goes to the heart of who we are and is a stark reminder of how devalued we are in this society.”
Beckett noted there was a power imbalance between D.S. and the examiner, who was white, male and a former police officer. She said that as an Indigenous woman, it was understandable D.S. was concerned about her personal information but the IIO didn’t consider her concerns in a meaningful way and instead seemed to view them as “unfounded and overly demanding.”
She ordered the IIO to pay D.S. $36,800 in lost wages equivalent to a six-month probationary period plus benefits and less income she earned during this period and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
The IIO did not respond to a request for comment.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
