A member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Calgary mobile-phone store to pay a total of $21,288 in compensation to a former sales employee and manager, who lodged a complaint against her supervisor alleging multiple instances of sexual harassment.

Tribunal member Ricki T. Johnston signed the decision in Ottawa on June 15, awarding to complainant Shelby Anne Opheim $12,000 for the employer’s willful and reckless conduct, $7,500 for her pain and suffering and $1,788 to make up for lost earnings.

Opheim was hired by Gillco Inc. to work at the store, Mobilicity, on May 4, 2011 at the age of 18, according to the written decision by Johnston. She often worked alone in the store with her boss, Gagan Gill, who was there two or three days each week. Opheim alleged that Gill had begun making sexually explicit comments to her within the first two weeks of her employment. The comments intensified and soon developed into unwanted touching, such as Gill forcing his hands up Opheim’s skirt and grabbing her breasts, she alleged.

Opheim quit the job on June 25, 2011, after Gill had allegedly asked her to walk up and down the street in front of the store in a skirt and high heels with flyers for a promotional sale – a request that made her feel “cheap” and unsafe, the Tribunal decision stated.

“There were considerable challenges with regard to determining the facts in this matter,” wrote Johnston in the decision. “Credibility was a significant factor, as the complainant and the respondents disagreed as to the occurrence of many of the events at issue.”

But Johnston determined that Opheim had offered “clear and specific evidence” that was consistent with the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct in her complaint. “This sexual conduct consisted of… sexual comments, sexual touching, sexual requests and the sexualized and demeaning work request that the complainant walk up and down the street in front of the Mobilicity store. The conduct was both frequent and ongoing.”

In contrast, Johnston deemed the evidence of Gill and Gillco to be lacking in substance. The respondents did not even challenge Opheim’s accusations in cross-examination or address any of her specific allegations.

“The only evidence Mr. Gill gave in his examination-in-chief on this point was to state that there was ‘nothing sexual’ with the complainant and that he ‘never touched her,’” Johnston wrote.

The decision noted that Opheim had begun to suffer from depression and anxiety following Gill’s alleged behaviour “and will be required to take anti-depressants for the rest of her life, at a cost of approximately $135 per month.” But she did not offer any evidence that these conditions had affected her ability to work full-time.

“I prefer the evidence of the complainant and find the individual respondent committed a discriminatory practice in sexually harassing the complainant,” wrote Johnston.