A former Northern Lights Manor health care aide who was fired over allegations of alcohol use must be rehired and awarded back pay and compensation, a human rights adjudicator ruled this week.
Linda Horrocks lost her job in 2012 after her employer, the NOR-MAN Regional Health Authority, accused her of drinking outside of work in violation of an agreement she signed.
Maintaining her innocence, Horrocks filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission claiming she was the victim of discrimination on the basis of her disability of alcohol addiction.
A government-appointed adjudicator sided with Horrocks on Tuesday, ordering she be reinstated, granted full back pay and awarded $10,000 “for injury to her dignity, feelings or self-respect.”
“It is important to recognize that it constitutes discrimination for an employer to rely on personal experiences and common place assumptions or stereotypes rather than on objective assessments when determining an accommodation plan for an employee who has a disability,” Sherri Walsh wrote in her decision. “Unfortunately I find such discrimination occurred in this case.”
Walsh further ordered the Northern Health Region (NHR), the successor to NOR-MAN, to implement a policy to provide “reasonable accommodation” to employees who have an alcohol addiction.
In a statement made through the Human Rights Commission, Horrocks said she is “willing and happy” to return to work.
“I have no problems working for [the NHR],” she said. “I think that everyone is professional and we can all work in a professional manner. ”
But there’s still a chance Horrocks won’t be rehired. NHR spokeswoman Twyla Storey said it’s too early to say whether the region will challenge the ruling.
Storey said the NHR is “disappointed” by the decision but does respect the office of the Human Rights Commission.
“We are reviewing the decision to assess its impact,” she added. “We will take steps to ensure patient safety is not compromised, as that remains a top priority for us.”
Horrocks had been a health care aide at the Northern Lights Manor for about two and a half years when a manager deemed her to be under the influence of alcohol while at work in June 2011.
She was suspended wi-thout pay pending further
investigation. Less than three weeks later, NOR-MAN told her she could return to work if she signed an agreement to abstain from alcohol at all times – including non-working hours – and receive treatment for the alcohol problem she admitted she had.
The complete ban on alcohol concerned Horrocks, who refused to sign the agreement on the advice of her union, which called the deal discriminatory toward a person with a disability.
NOR-MAN fired Horrocks on July 20, 2011.
“Patient safety is of the upmost importance in health care,” read her termination letter.
“By reporting to work under the influence of alcohol you are considered to have committed a fundamental breach of the employment relationship such that you can no longer be trusted to perform your health care duties in a safe manner.”
Horrocks’ firing was not truly final given that her union filed a grievance. On April 5, 2012, eager to get her job back she signed an agreement similar to the one she had previously refused, agreeing to abstain from alcohol at all times.
She had not yet returned to work when, on April 30, 2012, NOR-MAN told her it had received two reports of her drinking. One report said she smelled of alcohol at a grocery store; another said she sounded intoxicated when reached at home by phone.
Horrocks denied both reports, but on May 1, 2012, was again fired.
“Based on the conclusion that you have relapsed and faced with your sustained denial of same, the Employer is left with no reasonable alternative except to terminate your employment,” read the second termination letter.
In October 2012, Horrocks filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, which held hearings in Flin Flon and The Pas this past spring.
Walsh, the government-appointed adjudicator, wrote that the NHR failed to establish it had accommodated Horrocks’ “special needs associated with her disability.”
Nor did Walsh believe that the “discrimination…was based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for her employment” in accordance with human rights legislation.
As for Horrocks, she says she is not worried about how she will be treated or viewed by colleagues should she return to work.
Horrocks said the situation has been emotionally “nerve wracking” but she considers herself a strong person and “just kept plugging along.”
“Financially this was very damaging,” she said. “[She and her family] had to use food banks and we were not able to afford things that we were accustomed to, like cable or the Internet. I couldn’t afford to drive my own car. I had supports from family, but financially it was very difficult. We had to readjust and learn to live within my means.”
Human rights ruling: A timeline
January 2009
Linda Horrocks, then 50, begins work as a health care aide with the NOR-MAN Regional Health Authority (NRHA). She is assigned to the Northern Lights Manor.
Jan. 6, 2011
Horrocks meets with the NRHA and her union rep to discuss concerns about her absenteeism. She denies her absences are related to alcohol abuse.
May 2011
Horrocks begins receiving counselling from the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, enrolling in an addiction program called Reducing the Risk.
May 26, 2011
Horrocks again meets with the NRHA to discuss her attendance. It is improved, but it was noted she had nine absences dating back to early January. She tells the NRHA there were a number of reasons for those absences, including illness and the need to support family members.
June 3, 2011
A co-worker reports that she suspects Horrocks is under the influence of alcohol while at work. The NRHA regional manager meets with Horrocks and confirms that suspicion, sending her home and suspending her without pay.
June 7, 2011
In a meeting with the NRHA, Horrocks admits she struggles with alcohol use. The parties discuss steps she is taking to address her alcohol issues. They also discuss further inquiries that each would make to determine other treatment options for her, including residential rehab.
June 21, 2011
The NRHA tells Horrocks she can return to work if she signs an agreement that requires her to “at all times abstain from consumption of alcohol” and receive treatment. Horrocks later testifies she had concerns with the agreement, primarily that she would have to abstain from alcohol both at and outside of work.
July 14, 2011
Horrocks does not sign the agreement, following the advice of her union, which believes it is discriminatory toward a person with a disability.
July 20, 2011
The NRHA fires Horrocks. A letter of termination states it “is not possible to employ someone in [Horrocks’] position without reasonable assurance that [her] alcohol addiction is under control and that [she is] serious regarding ongoing abstention.”
Aug. 9, 2011
Horrocks’ union files a grievance, which the NRHA subsequently denies. Pursuant to the grievance procedure, the parties continue to discuss Horrock’s situation.
April 2012
Horrocks’ addictions counsellor believes Horrocks now has strategies in place to enable her to drink responsibly.
Apr. 5, 2012
Horrocks, her union and the NRHA sign an agreement similar to the one Horrocks declined in 2011. Changes include an extension of her unpaid suspension. Horrocks later testifies that while the agreement still required permanent abstinence from alcohol, she signed it because of her desperate financial situation.
Apr. 30, 2012
The NRHA tells Horrocks it received two reports she had been drinking since signing the agreement. Horrocks denies both reports.
May 1, 2012
The NRHA fires Horrocks. In her termination letter, the NRHA says: “Your denials are not believed and the Employer has concluded that you are in breach of a number of your commitments under the Memorandum of Agreement, most importantly, your commitment to abstain from consumption of alcohol.” Horrocks later testifies she did not know how to prove her innocence.
Oct. 25, 2012
Horrocks files a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission against the NHR. It alleges the NHR discriminated against her on the basis of a disability, alcohol addiction, and failed to reasonably accommodate needs associated with that disability. She also alleges the discrimination was not based on reasonable requirements for her occupation.
Aug. 28, 2014
Sherri Walsh is des-ignated as a government-appointed adjudicator to hear and make a decision in the case.
March and May, 2015
Seven days of hearings are held in Flin Flon and Winnipeg. Testimony reveals the NHR never thought there were viable alternatives to firing Horrocks, such as offering her back her job and then working out the details of treatment.
Sept. 15, 2015
Walsh determines Horrocks was discriminated against and orders she be rehired and granted full back pay and $10,000.
