HALIFAX—If the municipality had treated former firefighter Kathleen Symington like a person and not a “project,” her lawyer argues, she might still be working for Halifax Fire today.

On Monday, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (NSHRC) board of inquiry handling Symington’s allegations against her employer, Halifax Fire and Emergency Services, finished with closing submissions from both sides. Symington says she was discriminated against on the basis of gender and disability.

Ron Stockton, a member of Symington’s legal team, told the hearing that two letters of discipline from 2004 and 2006 being left on her personal file long after they were supposed to have been removed is a “clear act of discrimination.”

Symington has testified that, starting in 2001, she was sexually harassed by a co-worker who also vandalized her car. However, an internal workplace investigation concluded that her claims were unfounded, which led to her first 2004 disciplinary letter. The same complaint was also dismissed by the NSHRC in late 2005.

The 2006 letter was related to a failure to reply to work emails.

Although former Halifax Fire management denied ever reading her file, and said such letters wouldn’t have factored into a disability accommodation process that began in 2013, Stockton said their mere presence is discriminatory and proves retaliation by the employer based on her gender.

Read more:

Halifax firefighter says workplace discrimination ended her career

Halifax firefighter tells human rights inquiry about sexual harassment, retaliation from management

Retired Halifax Fire deputy chief blames former CAO for delay in female firefighter’s job accommodation request

Phil McNulty, who recently retired as deputy chief and before that held the role of executive officer, has testified the letters remained on Symington’s file due to “human error.”

Stockton said this could have simply been an oversight, but HRM is not a “mom and pop” operation. Staff are paid to ensure files are kept up to date when they’re reviewed, Stockton said.

“This is not just human error. At best it’s negligence,” he said.

At the start of the hearing two weeks ago, Symington described years of distrust and frustration with HRM on how she felt the sexual harassment and other issues were mishandled. Stockton said that although HRM urged Symington to try to leave the past behind, the effects of discrimination don’t go away overnight or even years later.

“This comes back to a misunderstanding and a failure to understand, by HRM, of the way discrimination works. How it affects people,” Stockton said.

Injuries from a 2004 car crash made it impossible for Symington to work as a firefighter after 2011. Symington alleges that management mishandled her requests for accommodations in retaliation for her earlier complaints and failed to keep her properly informed of the process.

Stockton said this discrimination lasted at the very least until May 2015, when her union informed her that Halifax Fire had modified a job for her in the stores department of the logistics division. The employer never directly offered it to her, Stockton said, and never followed up with Symington after she turned down the job in light of a note from her family doctor.

The note, written in April 2015 and given to HRM in May, she was unable to return to work. It cited mental-health issues, including severe stress and PTSD, coupled with chronic physical symptoms from the car crash. Symington retired from Halifax Fire soon after.

Throughout the job accommodation process, Stockton said the only information HRM told Symington was that they were scanning for vacancies and would let her know when something came up.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

McNulty and others have testified they had to get the stores job finalized before discussing it with Symington, and the delay was due to a former CAO’s attempts to slash the budget and delay filling positions. Stockton said this was not an acceptable reason, and HRM left Symington in the dark for two years.

The municipality might have had staff working on her accommodation, Stockton said, but what they didn’t do is “treat her like a human being.” Instead, they treated Symington as a “project” requiring boxes to be ticked off, he said, and no inquiries were made about her mental state.

Approval for the stores job came in March 2015, but HRM lawyer Karen MacDonald said it wasn’t offered to Symington then because the city was waiting to see what came of Symington’s lawsuit against Great-West Life for disability pay.

MacDonald argued that as soon as Symington filed the lawsuit in January 2015, that meant she wasn’t able to work and HRM’s duty to accommodate her ended. However, Stockton said there was nothing in the lawsuit that alleged Symington couldn’t work ever again.

But for HRM’s handling of the situation, Stockton said, Symington’s frustration might not have snowballed and she “may well have been back to work today.”

MacDonald also argued Monday that the whole case is “out of time.” The Great-West Life lawsuit triggered a 12-month countdown, she said, in which Symington should have filed the NSHRC complaint.

Stockton argued that the April 2016 claim was on time, since HRM’s lack of action is still an example of discriminatory conduct, and that lasted until May 2015.

Besides the timing issue, MacDonald said Symington hadn’t proven discrimination. MacDonald said what Symington perceived or believed to have happened is not enough to meet the test, and she did not prove any action had been taken based on her disciplinary letters. She also said that HRM fulfilled the job accommodation properly, and it’s their policy not to discuss possible roles with employees until they’re ready to avoid any disappointment if things fall through.

Symington’s beliefs about her negative experiences in Halifax Fire are very real for her, MacDonald said. She was “highly sensitive” to any employment issues that didn’t go the way she believed they should, MacDonald said — but this is not enough to show discrimination.

Kendrick Douglas, lawyer for the NSHRC, also said Monday he sees no evidence that delays in the accommodation process were discriminatory or retaliatory.

After the hearing, Stockton said he wasn’t surprised to hear this, as that was in Douglas’ first written submission for the case. He pointed out it was not the legal department that suggested Symington’s claim go before a board of inquiry, but the NSHRC group of commissioners — who also went against a recommendation from a human-rights officer.

Board chair Dennis James will release a decision in the coming months.

Read more about: