Words have different meanings to different people. What one sees as a slur may not be seen as a slur by another. However, what makes a word a slur in the legal context is when there is an element of malice connected to the word. The use of the word is intended to hurt the other person. This is different from foul language which is used either in anger or while being rude (which is a separate issue). In the employment context, using slurs can be discriminatory and can lead to financial damages.

Human Rights Tribunal decisions on the use of slurs

The Bhangu v Inderjit Dhillon and others (2023 BCHRT 24) decision was released in March of this year. In that case, there was a physical altercation between Manoj Bhangu and his colleagues. During the second altercation, Bhangu's colleagues used a slur that refers to the Dalit community and that they are the lowest in India's hierarchical caste system. As part of the Dalit community, Bhangu found the use of the slur extremely distressing, as his family left India to get away from such discrimination. Though the slur was only used three or four times in a physical altercation, it caused Bhangu serious mental distress. The BC Human Rights Tribunal found that Bhangu was entitled to $6,000 to compensate for the injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Words that are not commonly used as slurs can become slurs based on context. In Martinez Johnson v Whitewater Concrete Ltd. and others (No. 2), (2022 BCHRT 129) the complainant, Raul Martinez Johnson is Mayan and Black. Martinez Johnson's colleague used the Spanish words for monkey and ape to refer to him. These words, on their own, are not discriminatory. However, when used when referring to a black person, it brings up a historical connection that was used to infer that black people are subhuman. In this case, the BC Human Rights Tribunal ordered that Martinez Johnson gets $2,500 as compensation for his injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has also concluded that using slurs in the workplace is discriminatory. In Phillip v Andrews, (2018 HRTO 28) Leslie Andrews used the n-word in the workplace. Although the word was not directed at Sharon Phillip, she objected to it as she is black. The tribunal found that the use of the n-word caused injury to Phillip's dignity, feelings, and self-respect and awarded her $1,000 in compensation.

Just because someone finds a word objectionable, it is not necessarily discriminatory. In Dai v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 971, (2011 HRTO 876) Lai Seung Doris Dai objected to an email in which she was referred to as "Miss." Though the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal accepted that Dai was personally offended by the use of "Miss" the term is not discriminatory in that context. The tribunal explained that "Miss" is a common salutation for women and does not create the kind of disadvantage that is contemplated in the Human Rights Code. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

Takeaways from these decisions

These decisions show that there needs to be a connection between the word and a disadvantaged group for a word to be discriminatory. The Human Rights Tribunal will often look at the historical context of the word and how it affects the protected group that the individual is part of. Then the assessment will move to how much the slur affected the employee.

In a practical context, if you are not using words in a malicious context, it is unlikely that you will be found to be discriminating. If you are unsure what words are appropriate, ask the individual who might take offence to them. However, if it is a well-known slur, like the n-word, it is best to avoid using it at work.

How Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation can help

If you are concerned about human rights in your workplace, we offer human rights training. Though the training does not directly discuss slurs in the workplace, the issue can be explained in one of our in-person training sessions. If your workplace cannot take a day off for the training, we also offer our human rights training through self-paced online modules. See our training centre for more information.

If you find yourself involved in a human rights complaint, either as the complainant or respondent, you should contact one of our employment lawyers. Our employment lawyers are knowledgeable about both the federal and provincial human rights legislation and can help you address a human rights complaint. To speak to one of our employment lawyers please call us at 705-268-6492 or email us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.