Human Resources Orth V. Diner's Spot Restaurant

1047 Words5 Pages
Orth v. Diner’s Spot Restaurant, 2000 AHRC 6 (CanLII) The prohibited grounds of this case are mostly family status because Ms. Orth is being deprived of her job due to her pregnancy which brings along the fact that she may miss some days of work in the process. It can also be argued that Gender plays a role because most men do not have the worry of needing to miss time from work due to an incoming baby. This is a societal obstacle that only women must face. Ms Orth found out she was pregnant on September 5, 1994 and the next day told her supervisor. 4 months later on January 13, 1995 Patti was fired due to a “ shortage of hours”. All of her upcoming shifts were assigned to other waitresses. Ms. Orth was a good worker who had not trouble within the workplace up until the time when she had opened up about her pregnancy. It was not openly said to Ms. Orth by any of her bosses that she was being laid off due to her pregnancy, but one other fact that was mentioned by Ms. Orth was that there was a waitress in the past that was also fired from that restaurant that also happened to be pregnant. Section 7 and 28 of the Alberta human rights act both stand to protect people in such positions as pregnancy from workplace discrimination. The owner was displaying discrimination because the sole purpose of Ms. Orth being eliminated from the job was because she was missing work due to her pregnancy. She her work ethics and attitude were generally good, she was not fired based on any kind of reprimandable acts from the day she first started her job on June 6, 1994. Due to the fact that Ms. Orth was now a noticeably pregnant woman, it made it impossible for her to find another workplace that would hire her. This was obviously harmful on her amount of income. Harassment can be connected to this case because Ms. Orth’s shifts had been all assigned to

More about Human Resources Orth V. Diner's Spot Restaurant

Open Document