Google Canada Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Pregnancy Discrimination

A former employee of Google Canada, Sarah Lilleyman, has filed a lawsuit against the tech company, alleging wrongful dismissal linked to her pregnancy. This legal action has sparked a significant debate, as Google Canada contends that pregnancy does not fall under the protections afforded by the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Lilleyman claims she was terminated just days after disclosing her pregnancy to her supervisors in March 2024. According to her statement of claim submitted to Toronto’s Superior Court of Justice, she asserts that her dismissal constitutes a clear case of “pregnancy discrimination” and breaches the Ontario Human Rights Code. In response, Google Canada issued a statement of defence, denying the allegations of discrimination and wrongful dismissal, stating that her role was eliminated as part of a broader workforce reduction.

In January 2024, Google Canada announced significant workforce reductions across multiple locations and divisions due to shifting business needs. The company maintains that Lilleyman’s position was affected by this decision, and she was given two months’ notice prior to her termination.

In its defence, Google asserts that even if Lilleyman’s allegations were accurate, her claims do not constitute a violation of the Code. The company argues, “First, ‘pregnancy’ is not a protected ground under the Code.” Google further clarifies that Lilleyman was not dismissed based on her sex, gender, or any other protected grounds.

Contrarily, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) provides a different interpretation. According to the OHRC, the Code explicitly protects individuals who are pregnant, have recently given birth, or are experiencing other pregnancy-related situations. The commission outlines that this protection includes the entire process of pregnancy, from conception to the period following childbirth, as well as breastfeeding.

Furthermore, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, which adjudicates discrimination complaints related to the Code, confirms that the legislation prohibits discrimination and harassment on several grounds, including sex, which encompasses pregnancy discrimination.

In her lawsuit, Lilleyman is seeking damages for lost compensation and benefits, alongside punitive damages totaling $250,000 for what she describes as breaches of the Ontario Human Rights Code, in addition to $150,000 for the alleged discrimination.

As this case progresses through the legal system, it raises important questions about workplace protections for pregnant employees and the obligations of employers under human rights legislation. The outcome could have significant implications for both employees and employers navigating the complexities of pregnancy-related employment issues in Canada.