Treat IPV as a Human Rights Issue in the Workplace

Today is Day 12 of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. This post is part of my series, 16 tips in 16 days for getting your workplace domestic violence program off the ground.

If you missed any part of the series, you can go back to Day 1 here.

In Canada, unlike in many U.S. states, the protected status of IPV survivorship remains a grey area. No human rights commission has officially commented, and we don’t yet have clear case law. But there are important reasons for employers to treat IPV as a human rights issue — beyond moral considerations.

The US Context

In the US, 13 states have incorporated DV survivorship as a protected ground of discrimination in their human rights laws (as of December 2023).

Separately, the EEOC has recognized a link between DV/IPV-related discrimination and the protected grounds of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Examples they provide include:

• An employer terminates an employee after learning she has been subjected to domestic violence, saying he fears the potential “drama battered women bring to the workplace.”

  
  

• A hiring manager, believing that only women can be true victims of domestic violence because men should be able to protect themselves, does not select a male applicant when he learns that the applicant obtained a restraining order against his husband.

  
  

• A supervisor demotes an employee after learning she has been subject to dating violence, saying women can’t be relied on to have good judgment and make good choices because they can’t even manage their personal problems.

  
  

• An employer allows a male employee to use unpaid leave for a court appearance to testify in the criminal prosecution of an assault but does not allow a similarly situated female employee to use equivalent leave to testify in the criminal prosecution of domestic violence she experienced. The employer says that the assault by a stranger is a “real crime,” whereas domestic violence is “just a marital problem” and “women think everything is domestic violence.”

Canada: a legal grey area

In Canada, IPV survivorship is not a standalone protected ground of discrimination in human rights legislation. No human rights commission has commented on whether such survivorship is subsumed under any other grounds, such as sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, or family status. Nor do we have any guiding case law.

But, just this past year, for the first time in Canadian history, three human rights applications on this very subject moved to the hearing stage. In each case, an employee alleges discrimination by their employer for being an IPV survivor, and they've grounded their applications in the protected grounds of sex, marital status, and disability.

One of the cases was dismissed for being out of time, but this still forms part of a significant shift in the willingness of employees to seek redress for IPV-related discrimination.

Another one of the cases is before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The latest interim decision (addressing a motion to intervene) can be found here.

The last case is before the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The latest interim decision can be found here. This decision notably acknowledged the potential link between IPV survivorship and the protected grounds of sex and marital status:

While other factors are relevant, and an intersectional lens is necessary to fully understand the impact of this phenomenon, I am satisfied based on the information before the Worker has taken out of the realm of conjecture that domestic violence is connected to sex and gender, and like sexual harassment, is a form of sex discrimination [...].

I am further satisfied, in view of the information provided, that there is a logical connection between domestic violence and the ground of marital status. By its very nature, this type of violence occurs within the context of an intimate relationship, whether it be characterized by marriage, living common-law, or otherwise. In this case, the domestic violence occurred in the course of a long-term romantic relationship.

And so, while we don't yet have a decision on the merits expressly affirming the link between IPV survivorship and a protected ground of discrimination here in Canada, we may have one soon in the future. And in the meantime, there appears to be a sea change in the willingness of employees to seek redress before human rights bodies in this country.

Intersection with disability: another reason for addressing IPV as a human rights consideration

The physical and psychological impacts of IPV fall squarely under the protected ground of disability. Effective workplace responses must address these intersecting rights together.

For example, substance use disorders often co-occur with IPV, sometimes as a coping mechanism. Research shows that treating a substance use disorder without addressing IPV will often fail.

In one 2017 case, an employer accommodated the substance use disorder but treated IPV-related absences as non-compliance. The survivor lost their job, demonstrating how narrowly addressing only one aspect of the issue can fail.

A workplace IPV program needs to be built on trust to succeed

Approaching IPV as a human rights issue helps cultivate trust and reduces resistance to risk assessments and safety planning. Employees are more likely to engage when they feel their experiences are recognized holistically, and accommodations are approached thoughtfully. These findings have been borne out in trauma- and violence-informed care in the healthcare sector.

Treating IPV as a human rights issue isn’t just legally prudent — it’s operationally effective. It helps create a workplace where survivors feel supported, risk is managed proactively, and interventions are more likely to succeed.

Ready to take action?

If you’re interested in learning more about creating a trauma- and violence-informed IPV program in your workplace — including risk assessments, safety planning, and policy development — I provide guidance, training, and advisory services for organizations across Canada (except Quebec and the territories).

Please reach out. I'd love to speak with you.