A discrimination case brought to the BC Human Rights Tribunal between a 13-year-old Black girl and a popular Vancouver restaurant and juice bar, Heirloom, was ruled in the young girl’s favour.
According to the tribunal decision, the young girl, referred to as AB, began as a dishwasher and then moved to a counter service and juicer at the now-closed Vancouver juice bar.
The tribunal set out to determine whether AB faced discrimination based on her sex and race.
After working at Heirloom for six months, a complaint was filed about Nicolas Stone, AB’s direct manager. AB’s mom helped her with the complaint.
In case you were curious, as long as only light work is involved, it is legal for a 13-year-old to work in a restaurant environment.
AB alleged that Stone accused her of theft, demoted her, “and was overly harsh towards her because she is a Black girl.”
This led to AB resigning from Heirloom.
In response to these allegations, Stone claimed he talked to AB about cash shortages on her shifts but didn’t accuse her of theft or demote her. He also denied being overly harsh towards her.
He also said any concerns raised about AB were only related to work performance and “were entirely non-discriminatory.”
Stone and William Greer, the owner and president of Heirloom, said the case should be dismissed.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal found that AB had proven her discrimination claim.
“There is no question that on September 14, 2019, Mr. Stone spoke to AB about cash shortages on her shift.”
The decision says that AB was in tears by the end of that conversation, and then she called her mom.
- You might also like:
- Landlord keeps vacation rental deposit over beet juice stains
- 16 women file workplace harassment complaint against BC Ferries
- Vancouver civil rights activists mourn death of BC's first Black judge
After September 15, AB didn’t return to her usual counter-service duties. She claimed that Stone prevented her from working the register and assigned her to other tasks at the back of the store.
“She says that, in essence, she was demoted,” reads the decision.
AB requested a reference later that month, which Stone refused to provide. According to Stone, it was because he had concerns about her work performance. AB says refusal was part of a pattern of Stone’s heightened “scrutiny and harshness towards her” because she is Black.
Another reason he cited for his refusal was AB not wearing her work shirt as requested.
“Not a big deal”
According to Greer, cash shortages are common, “not a big deal,” and usually due to young or inexperienced workers making errors.
The tribunal accepted this evidence, but the difficulty was that Stone did not treat the shortages as “not a big deal.”
AB claimed that Stone called her untrustworthy and said, “We can’t have thieves working for the company.”
The tribunal ultimately decided that Stone did not attempt to comfort AB.
The tribunal found that “AB was adversely impacted when Mr. Stone singled her out with allegations of ‘reoccurring cash shortages [during] her shifts,’ leaving her in tears.”
In her resignation letter, AB wrote, “I cannot continue to work there because I don’t feel safe, welcomed or comfortable because it’s impossible for me to work in an environment where my manager doesn’t trust me.”
The tribunal’s ruling
After referencing several cases in determining whether AB was scrutinized because of her race and sex, the tribunal found that Stone’s conduct was consistent with harmful stereotypes that Black people face.
“I also find that Mr. Stone’s refusal to provide AB with a reference letter was tainted with
stereotypes about Black girls and women” said tribunal member Amber Prince.
“The evidence indicates that Mr. Stone singled out AB for criticism that was disproportionate and unwarranted.”
AB was awarded $2,495.77 for lost wages and $25,000 for injury to dignity.