Yukon University ordered to compensate employee after discriminatory contract ending

Yukon University must pay a former employee $35,000 for injury to dignity and $19,738.88 in lost wages after a human rights board found that her experience of domestic violence was a factor in ending her employment and not renewing her contract.

In Antony v. Yukon University, YHRPA File 2025-04, decided May 28, 2026, the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication rejected the university’s argument that the expiry of a fixed-term contract answered the discrimination claim. The university had already conceded discrimination in the way Melissa Antony’s employment was brought to an early end, but disputed liability for not offering another term.

Chief Adjudicator Judith Hartling awarded three months of wages, rather than the six months Antony sought, and declined to award costs. The decision did not order reinstatement or a permanent position.

An abrupt end after leave

Antony began working at the university in January 2021. Her contract was renewed five times, with the last term due to end March 31, 2023. Her work included digital literacy, micro-credentials and the university’s Indigenization Strategy. Supervisors described her work as excellent and timely, and she had taken on additional responsibilities.

She returned from domestic violence leave on February 13, 2023. The following day, her supervisor told her the university was changing direction, instructed her to wrap up her work, and directed her not to attend an upcoming presentation. She was told to return her keys and lost access to university systems.

Human resources later corrected the treatment of her pay and vacation entitlements, paying her salary through March 31 and her vacation pay separately. Access to her computer and the campus was also restored. Those steps did not resolve whether ending her work and refusing another contract were discriminatory.

Fixed terms do not permit discriminatory non-renewal

The board applied the three-part human rights test: a protected characteristic, an adverse impact and a connection between the two. Once that case was established, the university had to justify its conduct.

Domestic violence is not separately listed as a prohibited ground in Yukon’s Human Rights Act. The university accepted that it was protected here through the ground of sex. The board agreed, considering expert evidence about its disproportionate impact on women and its relationship to workplace disadvantage. It described this as the first time the issue had arisen in a Yukon human rights hearing.

The board found the timing and abruptness of the termination connected Antony’s circumstances to the refusal to renew her employment. A protected characteristic needed to be only one factor in the adverse treatment, not its sole explanation.

The university relied on organizational changes and the fixed end date. Its evidence described the transition from college to university, changes in leadership and the reassignment of projects. But the board found no evidence explaining how a change in direction justified such an abrupt end to Antony’s work or excluded another term.

There was further work, funding and a history of successful renewals. Her expertise could have assisted the university as it worked out its new direction. The supervisor’s suggestion that he thought she would want time off carried little weight: he had not discussed that with her or human resources before telling her to stop working.

The distinction was between a general entitlement to renewal, which fixed-term employees do not have, and the right not to be denied renewal for a discriminatory reason.

Compensation, not punishment

The board assessed both the seriousness of the conduct and its effect on Antony. It found the abrupt loss of meaningful work particularly harmful in her circumstances, while recognizing that the discrimination was a single event rather than a prolonged series of incidents.

The $35,000 award compensated injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. The separate $19,738.88 wage award reflected the board’s finding that she could have expected another three-month term. Neither amount was a fine.

The board declined costs after considering the human rights process and the risk that costs could deter legitimate complaints. It also noted the university’s concessions had assisted the hearing. The ruling establishes liability on this employment record, not an automatic right to renewal whenever a term contract expires.