Update by Erin Brandt, Cofounder

The BC Human Rights Code protects individuals from discrimination at work on the basis of religion. But there are limits to this protection. The case of Glebov v Fraser International College, 2024 BCHRT 19 reminds us of what a complainant must prove in order to be successful in a human rights complaint.

Background

Mr. Glebov was an Academic Sessional Instructor with Fraser International College (“FIC”). He signed an employment contract which referenced various policies, including policies on discrimination, harassment and conflicts of interest.

During Mr. Glebov’s employment, an anonymous complaint was made to FIC about comments Mr. Glebov made in YouTube videos on topics like abortion, sexual assault, homosexuality, gender identity and various non-Christian religions. FIC conducted an investigation of Mr. Glebov’s YouTube videos and terminated his employment.

Mr. Glebov argued that FIC discriminated against him by terminating his employment because of the YouTube videos of him preaching his Christian religious views. FIC argued that it was not concerned with Mr. Glebov’s belief or practices, and never sought to place restrictions on Mr. Glebov’s ability to practice or discuss his religion privately; but that Mr. Glebov violated FIC’s policies when he took his views to YouTube.

Decision

FIC filed a preliminary application to dismiss Mr. Glebov’s complaint.

To trigger protection on the basis of religious belief or practice, Mr. Glebov would have to show that he sincerely believed that publicly posting videos of himself preaching his views:

1. Has a connection with religion; and

2. Is experientially religious in nature because:

a.      It is objectively required by the religion;

b.      He subjectively believes it is required by the religion; or

c.      He sincerely believes that the practice engenders a personal, subjective connection to the divine or the subject or object of his spiritual faith.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Glebov had no reasonable prospect of proving that he had a sincerely held religious belief or practice that required him to publicly share his views on the subjects at issue.

While Mr. Glebov argued that he expressed his views in the context of a sermon, citing various Christian texts, Mr. Glebov did not provide any evidence that he had a religious duty to spread his views, or that he manifests his religious beliefs through activism. He did not demonstrate that his ability to practice his religious would be compromised if he were unable to do so. It was incumbent on Mr. Glebov to put this evidence forward, and he did not.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Glebov’s complaint and did not allow it to proceed to hearing.

Key Take Away for Employees

Employees should be careful not to violate their employer’s policies when posting on social media. Protection against discrimination on the basis of religion will not apply to all activities connected to religion, only those activities that are required by the religion.

Employees also bear the burden of proving their case through evidence. Even cases that have a chance of succeeding will fail if the right evidence is not produced.

Key Take Away for Employers

Employers should have robust policies on bullying and harassment, covering off-duty social media activities that might negatively impact the workplace.

Further, had Mr. Glebov demonstrated that publicly preaching his religious views was objectively or subjectively required by his religion, or that the practice engenders a personal, subjective connection to the divine (or the subject or object of his spiritual faith), Mr. Glebov’s case for discrimination might have had a different result.