A manager can have a legitimate reason for making a decision and still make a discriminatory decision. That possibility is uncomfortable for employers because it means a plausible explanation isn't always a complete answer. It's equally uncomfortable for complainants because a suspicious sequence of events doesn't relieve them of the obligation to prove a connection to a protected characteristic. The difficulty isn't usually identifying the protected ground or the lost opportunity. It's deciding what actually influenced a human decision when several explanations might be true at once. A poor performance review, a budget reduction or a breach of policy can be genuine. So can the influence of disability, race, sex or another protected characteristic. The fact that 1 explanation is credible doesn't logically exclude the others. Canadian human rights law recognizes this problem, but it doesn't solve it by automatically believing the complainant. The Supreme Court of Canada requires proof that a protected ground was a factor in the adverse treatment.
This is a preview. Full access requires an eligible Intelligence membership.