WARNING: This story contains allegations of sexual assault that some people may find distressing.
A Canada Line attendant who alleges she was sexually assaulted and harassed by her boss at a company party has filed a lawsuit against her employers, alleging she was traumatized and unable to work as a result of their investigation into the ‘incident.
AH’s lawsuit says she chose not to talk about what happened to her at the 2010 party, but was forced to participate when Protrans BC, which operates the Canada Line of rapid transit in Metro Vancouver, opened an investigation 11 years later. Because she is the alleged victim of a sexual assault, CBC has agreed not to use her full name.
She alleges that the company learned of her experience by reviewing someone else’s complaint against the same supervisor.
AH’s notice of complaint says she was “deeply and negatively” affected by the investigation, which ended with no consequences for supervisor AD, who still controls nearly every aspect of her working life.
She said she and her husband, who both work under AD, are now off work due to the stress of this process.
“It was the hardest seven months of my life, of my family’s life, all because I spoke the truth. I now understand why people – women in particular – were afraid to Express [about sexual assault]”, AH told CBC in a written statement.
Its Notice of Claim, filed March 1 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleges that AD is liable for sexual assault and harassment, and holds Protrans BC and parent company SNC-Lavalin liable for others, claiming that they violated their standards and their duty of care to employees.
In their May 13 response, the companies say their internal investigation found the alleged assault “did not take place, as alleged or at all.” He goes on to say that all reasonable measures have been taken to ensure the safety of workers.
The companies argue that because AH filed a mental health claim with WorkSafeBC related to that experience and her union filed a grievance, the courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case.
AD has yet to file a response to the allegations against him and did not respond to requests for comment.
According to AH’s claim, he retains power over his “training, hours of work, waiver approvals, job security and duties.”
“Right to choose” whether to report
The alleged assault happened at a party at the River Rock Casino in Richmond, British Columbia, held to celebrate the end of the 2010 Winter Olympics, according to the notice of claim.
AH alleges that AD approached behind her at the party, pushed his erect penis onto her upper thigh and pressed against her body.
Later that night, while sleeping in her hotel room, she alleges that AD “went door to door at the hotel, calling out Complainant’s name and looking for Complainant, which threatened and intimidated the complainant”.
The claim states that the day after that night, “as a survivor, [she] had the right to choose and chose not to pursue anything” in terms of AD statement
“Several years later [in] 2021, the defendant companies forced her to do so, when another plaintiff filed suit against [A.D.] and has opened an investigation into his current and historical conduct,” the complaint reads.
AH told CBC that she had just started work at the time, and “What new employee would want to rock the boat in their new career? It was easier back then to put it in a corner of my head.”
When the 2021 investigation was launched, she said she agreed to be interviewed partly because she believed in the importance of telling the truth, but also because she was worried about the consequences if she did not participate. not.
At the time, SNC-Lavalin’s Code of Conduct stated that employees “must always[…]cooperate fully, honestly and transparently” with internal investigations, and failure to do so “may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.”
AH’s claim states that the investigation ended without “reasonable results, rather AD, a repeat sex offender, was allowed to continue in his role as Complainant’s supervisor unabated.”
He goes on to say that “the lack of actual results made it impossible for the plaintiff to continue in employment.”
The companies’ response alleges that the investigation did not substantiate AH’s allegations, but does not provide further details of the findings.
AH alleges that she suffered “serious emotional injuries” from the experience, including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, insomnia, anxiety, paranoia and intrusive thoughts. She seeks damages from her employer and AD, as well as her past and future health costs.
Trial dates are set for July 2023, but Protrans BC and SNC-Lavalin have asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, arguing that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter.
None of the allegations in the lawsuit or the response have been proven in court.
