CIBC did not discriminate against ex-employee based on his disability and heterosexuality, FCA rules

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce did not discriminate against a former call centre employee, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled Monday, affirming the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s finding that the bank properly accommodated the employee’s medical needs and did not deny him work opportunities because he is heterosexual.  

In a unanimous, 46-page decision, the FCA agreed with a lower court that the CHRC had conducted a comprehensive and balanced review of the employee’s complaints and was correct to dismiss them.  

The CHRC’s “investigation report in this case was lengthy, detailed and thorough, and it clearly explained why the evidence did not support any of the allegations of discrimination contained in Mr. Jagadeesh’s complaint form,” Justice Anne Mactavish wrote for the court.  

“It is, moreover, clear from the Commission’s decision precisely why it decided not to deal with Mr. Jagadeesh’s human rights complaint, and its decision was justified, transparent and intelligible,” Mactavish added.  

Justices Mary Gleason and Judith Woods concurred.  

Aaren Jagadeesh filed his complaint with the CHRC in 2017, alleging CIBC discriminated against him based on his disability and sexual orientation.  

Jagadeesh was an employee with CIBC’s Outbound Contact Centre, where his role required him to make 60-70 phone calls per day. According to Jagadeesh, the demands of the job made him develop a painful vocal condition, and his family doctor recommended he manage his pain by speaking on the phone less.  

The employee claimed CIBC began discriminating against him after he received a formal diagnosis of muscle tension dysphonia and a doctor recommended workplace accommodations. Jagadeesh alleged CIBC refused to provide him with the level of accommodation he was entitled to, including moving him to a different role that would require him to use his voice less. Instead, the bank asked him to go on short-term disability benefits and work reduced hours.

Jagadeesh said CIBC began cutting his pay, manipulated his performance statistics, and threatened him with disciplinary action when he took medically necessary breaks, and terminated him in 2016.  

He also alleged his manager informed him there was no hope for him at the company unless he was part of a group of LGBTQ employees, explaining that every male manager in their department was gay or bisexual. Jagadeesh alleged his sexual orientation was why CIBC did not consider him for 17 other jobs he applied to at the bank.  

The CHRC dismissed Jagadeesh’s first complaint. The employee challenged the dismissal in federal court, and the court ordered the CHRC to conduct a fresh investigation because the commission had not looked into Jagadeesh’s sexual orientation allegations.  

The CHRC conducted a new investigation, dismissing the case again. Jagadeesh appealed the commission’s decision, arguing the CHRC’s investigation did not consider all the evidence available and was biased. He also alleged the CHRC’s decision was unreasonable. The federal court dismissed the appeal, and Jagadeesh brought his case to the FCA.  

The court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts and the CHRC, concluding the commission conducted a thorough and fair investigation. Dismissing Jagadeesh’s disability discrimination claim, which focused on CIBC’s failure to provide him with an alternate job at the bank, Mactavish said “an employer is required to provide a disabled employee with reasonable accommodation. It does not have to [be] perfect, and it does not have to be the employee’s preferred form of accommodation.”  

Mactavish also dismissed Jagadeesh’s allegation that he faced discrimination based on his sexual orientation, noting Jagadeesh’s manager denied he ever told him he would not progress within CIBC unless he was part of the LGBTQ community. The manager alleged that Jagadeesh told him, “I know that you are gay and that’s why you treat me differently,” prompting the manager to document the incident and inform his own supervisor.  

The manager’s version of events were corroborated by notes taken at meetings between himself, Jagadeesh, a senior manager, and a human resources representative, Mactavish said. She added that the second CHRC investigator assigned to Jagadeesh’s case interviewed multiple male CIBC managers who denied they were gay or bisexual, and who could not identify a single manager working with Jagadeesh who identified as LGBTQ.  

The FCA also noted that the investigator examined the application processes for the jobs Jagadeesh applied to, and found that none of the individuals screening out his applications knew him directly or indirectly, so it would “be reasonable to assume from this that none of the individuals screening out Mr. Jagadeesh’s job applications would have been aware of his sexual orientation.” 

Noting Jagadeesh was “a well-educated individual who was clearly very frustrated by his inability to get ahead,” Mactavish still concluded that “the fact that he was unable to progress in his career at the CIBC does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that he was the victim of discrimination based on his sexual orientation or his vocal disability.” 

Neither CIBC nor counsel for the bank responded to requests for comment. Jagadeesh could not be reached for comment.