因为英语有口音遭解雇：华裔索赔99万

5P6兄弟，我不觉得这是蛮干，刘先生那个上司应该得到一定程度的惩罚。 这位刘先生已经在那里工作三年了，每年考核都是合格，还因工作表现好受过奖励，这说明他的英语基本能达到工作要求，他也报了ESL在改进自己的英语。作为一名英语基础不好的人，刘先生没做错什么。 判断一个人英语好不好，主观的因素很大，如果纵容某些人以此为借口肆意妄为，那华人在职场将面临巨大不公。 讨公道和提高英语是两回事。

不明白那位怎么丢人了 倒是你这种天天给西人舔屁股的货才真是丢人

回复 此网站都是轮子：We are trying to discuss some serious business here. Foul mouthing low beings please do not enter lol

对于help desk工作，英语口语肯定是必要条件，别人的问题都听不明白，解释不清楚，怎么做工作？即使在中国，讲话结结巴巴，听不明白客户意思的人，即使技术能力不弱也会被人认为能力和智力有问题。这是人之常情。全球化时代完全不用讲话的工作都外包到中国，印度去了，剩下来的工作多多少少需要语言能力的。语言越好工作越轻松，同事客户关系越好，晋升越快，做得也越有趣味。一言不发，埋头干活的技术活是又累又无趣，别人不愿干才留给你语言不好的人的。

回复 weinberger：你有没有看清楚原文？事主干的活叫help desk analyst。干啥的，就是要听清楚同事需求，把这些需求写成流程。一个听不清楚别人说啥，自己说啥别人又不知道，咋干？这个职位语言表达能力要求高一点。 加拿大职场人种五花八门，各种口音都有，我没见过因为口音炒人的，英语能力差，表达不好炒了就很多。我以前有个黑妹跟我干analyst职位，本地出生，没口音，人很好，个性很好，就是个性太内向，怕表达自己，后来我耐性不够开了她。 现在好多了，左手是韩国妹，右手是东欧妹，都是本地出生的，我开会带着她俩，会议开完了，当天韩国妹会给我一份procedures，东欧妹给一份process map，好让我有时间集中pp，膀胱健康了。

唉，国移还有这样心态思维。 全世界都一样，职场成功的2大因素：情商，表达能力。 技术？？？你的吗哟，继续干你的底层脑力民工呗。

如果刘先生的顾客对刘先生有抱怨，那么Everlink完全可以根据这些抱怨，证明他们对刘先生的解雇是基于工作表现不佳（而不是英语）——如果这样，Everlink不可能输掉官司。事实只能是：Everlink根本拿不出刘先生工作不好的证据，只能拿英语说事，这实质上就是歧视在作祟。

原文哪里写了事主之后一直没工作了？

human rights tribunal属于安省social justice tribunal一个部分，social justice tribunal设立提供简易法律程序，让公义变得方便便宜，不用动不动上法院，其实很好的制度，方便监察政府大机构，保障平民百姓。social justice tribunal管很多事情，上学廉租房人权福利金等等。 里面审判员（注意啊，不是法官），除了program administrator有法律背景（他工资12-13万，真不算多，自己出去挂牌赚得更多，这些人脑子坏了，整天想着社会公义才会干这样工作），其他全部是兼职审判员，基本上全是退休专业人员，例如教师公务员护士医生社工等等。social justice tribunal要的不是法律人员，他们要一般人用公义角度看是否公平，就这样。这些兼职审判员每天工资是295块大洋，如果一个小时解决了问题，时薪就是295，如果8个小时解决，那就是低薪工作，还好这些人退休了，工作不是为钱，是为社会公义。 申请人上网填好表格，tribunal确定合资格，答辩人时限内提供summary reply。审判员安排调解(settlement)，调解不成功，有正式hearing，可以有或没有律师代表。审判员大部分偏帮申请人，因为申请人大部分弱势。 调解或审判后申请人或答辩人不满意，可以去正式法庭申请司法复核。

牛逼到配一个白妞翻译,可惜不是俺,这里不是歧视的问题,而是智商

事实胜于雄辩！ 法官判赢了，说明就是种族歧视，给那些肆无忌惮的老板们一个教训，我觉得做得对。 还敢于告前老板，勇气可嘉，在加拿大就要维护自己的合法权益。 加拿大因为有好的法律来约束企业，老板们绝大多数都守法（有些从大陆来的法盲除外），否则加拿大就是中国的解放前。

三年考核及格，以后就不能被开了？这个结论站得住脚吗？公司对员工的要求是随着工作经验的积累而逐年增加的。如果发现员工的技能进步跟不上要求，就有权利采取措施。不少公司每年把类似岗位和工作经验的员工相互比较，排在后面的自动淘汰，这就叫竞争。作为help desk员工，语言技能肯定是个重要的考核标准。如果捆住公司手脚，让雇主因为害怕被告而不敢及时淘汰不合格及进步不快的员工，这与你所厌恶的混日子的公营机构又有何区别呢？这样下去公司失去竞争力而倒闭了，就只有所有人都回家。

回复 weinberger：你和5P6的意思差不多，都是说过去的合格不能代表他后来的“不合格”，因为公司的要求是on an on-going basis。我也就同时回复你们俩吧。 好吧，就算Everlink对员工的要求确实逐年增加（按理说相应的compensation也应该逐年增加——我说的不是按通货膨胀调整的部分——不过我就不在这上跟你较真了），也确实逐年考核。但这种递增的要求，与是否达到要求的评定标准，都必须是清晰明确，并客观可实现的。以刘先生的例子，他的老板是否曾明确的要求刘先生在某个给定时间内英语必须达到某种水平（比如说ESL某个级别）？如果没有这样的要求，那么如何证明那位新老板以语言为借口的解雇决定是客观合理的？又如何让刘先生制定自己的行动计划来提高自己以满足公司的要求？ 5P6说“ I personally am a strong believer that lousy communication leads to loss of productivity, low work efficiency and, in some severe cases, workplace accidents. Unfortunately, poor language ability is a common stereotype amongst visible minority communities who often play the victim role in a discrimination case.”。Theoretically I agree. So what? Did Mr. Liu ever lose any producitivity? Did Mr. Liu ever present low work efficiency?? Did Mr. Liu ever cause any workplace accidents??? 他的上司如果能拿出以上任何一条有说服力的“罪证”（比如很多员工对刘先生提供的技术服务的complaint），Everlink都不会输掉这场官司。不是吗？ 虽然我经历的公司不多，但生活在加拿大，没吃过猪肉也见过猪跑。一个正规的公司，对员工提出越来越高的要求的同时，也给予员工充足的成长空间，让他们有机会改进自己，并给予鼓励和及时反馈——刘先生前老板的做法也是这种理念的体现，为什么换了新老板便一切都不对头了？难道连公司文化也一夜之间变成蛮不讲理了吗？ So, is it justified to link a performance-based workplace termination to racial discrimination? Of course not! But wait a minute, ARE YOU SURE IT IS A PERFORMANCE-BASED WORKPLACE TERMINATION? 至于Weinberger最后把努力改进自己的刘先生和公务员寄生虫相比，你知道你已经开始信口开河了吗？你知道在贵族工会保护下的公务员寄生虫们连annual performance review都不用吗？不懂就学，别满嘴跑火车。公司裁人可以，但要公平客观。一个像Everlink这样“欲加之罪，何患无辞”的公司，能有竞争力？笑话！

回复 西风纵：I think I need to be a little more blunt to make my point clearer. I sympathize the situation that Mr. Liu had been in, but let's face it, not everyone 'SHOULD' have enough patience and niceness for a slow colleague who exhibits communication disabilities, especially in a fast-paced work environment where effective communication between co-workers is highly expected. No one really, cares where you are from or what food you eat. All bosses care is whether your tools are sharpened enough and whether your characters blend in the culture of the office you work for. Trust me, you win the case, good for you, but that doesn't stop people from trash-talking you and your race as a whole. Guess who is the loser here?

The point is he didn't fail to meet the requirement of the job! Otherwise how can he survive for 3 years and pass his performance review every year? Otherwise why did the company give him the full-time job offer? It's true he doesn't speak perfect English, but he followed his previous boss' advice and have been trying to improve his English. What did he do wrong? I agree that language skills are important for help desk, but that does not justify the employment termination based on his current boss' subjective determination. In this case, his new boss obviously has a prejudice against Mr.Liu (or maybe all Chinese) from day one. He (the new boss) should pay the price for that.

回复 西风纵：Let's be very clear here. Termination of an employee doesn't need to be solely based on his past performance. Evaluation of an employee's performance has to be on an on-going basis to ensure the performance meets ever-changing workplace environment and expectation. Your primary argument, that him being a 'qualified' employee in the past would convincingly form the ground of him being a 'qualified' employee today, is therefore, fairly weak. I don't disagree that there should be no room for racial discrimination in workplace whatsoever. Absolutely not acceptable. The tricky question is, is an employee's command of the official language not a part his(her) performance package? I personally am a strong believer that lousy communication leads to loss of productivity, low work efficiency and, in some severe cases, workplace accidents. Unfortunately, poor language ability is a common stereotype amongst visible minority communities who often play the victim role in a discrimination case. So, is it justified to link a performance-based workplace termination to racial discrimination? To get to the bottom of this question, in my humble opinion, will require case-by-case scrutiny. However this verdict has set a very controversial precedent that excludes communication skills from the required skillset and encourages playing 'race' card whenever a dispute arises. Besides, it's a petty mentality that you always think you're the target of social injustice.

回复 5 past 6：Agree with you. This is a VERY controversial case decided by Tribunal adjudicator Ms. Jo-Anne Pickel. Unlike physical disability, sex, marital status, religion, etc., the official language skills I think is a MUST to be qualified to perform certain job roles such as Mr. Liu Yonbin's Help desk Support Analyst position. This is NOT something the company and the business owner have the legal obligation to accommodate your lousy language level. To terminate based on lack of language communication ability to perform the ever changing job requirement is NOTHING Wrong at all! On the other hand, YOU CAN'T fire people who is sick, who is pregnant, who is a gay/lesbian, who is a Muslim/Buddhist, so on... that is Discrimination and against the law (the Human Rights Code, so to say)! It's so bizarre that the Human Rights Tribunal made lots of unbelievable decisions. Like the case I mentioned happened in a Mississauga Hair Salon, the girl was hired as a receptionist but the 1st day she was hired she indicated she will take maternity leave soon and the small business owner let her go, and immediately the girl (20 years' old single mom) went to hire a public funded lawyer (from the humen rights legal support centre) for free and sued the hair salon immediately, and the Tribunal decided she won 100% and she got anout $50,000 from the small company, that time she already found a better paid job! What a joke of these Tribunal decision makers (called adjudicators), they got paid salary about 150K a year from Ontario taxpayer to write these decisions.

你妒忌人家装孙子你可以装逼呀。

回复 哆伦哆：装成麻袋那么大，能把你塞回去的那种？

回复 哆伦哆：别客气，我嫉妒的就是你。

你妈逼要是敢当面跟当事人说，当事人，能一把掌把你塞回你妈逼里头去。

回复 漂在多伦多：别介，那位他妈的逼哪有那么大呀？赶上麻袋了。

回复 漂在多伦多：很黄, 很暴力. 呵呵

不管这么多了，拿到钱再说。等这钱用完了，再用同样的理由告下一个雇主。哈哈。

文章里写得很清楚，刘先生已经报了ESL班去改进自己的语言能力。 提高语言是一回事，刘先生对此并没有拒绝；反对歧视是另一回事。刘先生的英语应该足够应付日常工作，否则他不会在那里工作3年并年年考核合格，还获得过奖励。他那个新上司以英语为借口裁人，纯粹就是故意找茬。如果纵容这种事情，估计以后不少工作都要被阿差抢走了。

狗粮把文章看清楚再喷，公司年度评估合格，前任上司认可但被现任上司排挤，摆明就是歧视！ 再者当事人光荣与否与你何干？摆出特么一副居高临下的吊样！

下面所有同伙都认为公司做得对。