“It’s a man’s job, not a woman’s”: employer ordered to pay punitive damages for tolerating sexism on a construction site

Sexist Psychological Harassment in the Workplace – Commentary on the Recent Decision Association canadienne des métiers de la truelle (Local 100) v. Maçonnerie M. Demers inc. (Sabrina Lauzon), 2025 QCTA 115

In a recent decision, the arbitration tribunal sends a clear message to employers in the construction sector and traditionally male-dominated workplaces: tolerating a sexist culture or turning a blind eye to discriminatory behaviour not only exposes female workers to toxic environments, but also seriously engages the employer’s liability.

Indeed, in Association canadienne des métiers de la truelle (Local 100) v. Maçonnerie M. Demers inc. (Sabrina Lauzon)^[1], arbitrator Me Francine Lamy concluded that the sexism experienced by a female bricklayer from her foreman on a construction site constituted psychological harassment of a discriminatory nature, and that the employer’s inaction contributed to trivializing such behaviour. As a result, the arbitrator ordered the employer not only to compensate the complainant for her job loss, but also to pay $15,000 in punitive damages, and reserved jurisdiction to award moral damages.

THE FACTS

The complainant, Sabrina Lauzon, had been working for Maçonnerie Demers, a company specializing in masonry work, since May 2017. At the end of her training, one of her instructors had contacted the company’s owner in hopes of finding her a supportive workplace where she could be properly mentored.

The REM project site, where the complainant worked in 2022 and 2023, is a major construction site where bricklayers mainly install concrete blocks. In 2022, after accumulating the required hours, she obtained her competency cards and became a journeyperson. As women are rare in the trade, Ms. Lauzon was the only woman in the company for the entirety of her employment, and the only female worker from Maçonnerie Demers on that particular site during the relevant period.

Despite having a good relationship with the company’s owner, the complainant stated that she was treated differently and disadvantaged because of her sex, denouncing a toxic and hostile work environment. This was particularly true on sites supervised by foreman Normand Lebrun — notably the REM site. She also stated that she was dismissed from the site after lodging a complaint about Mr. Lebrun’s behaviour.

The foreman’s conduct, as found by the Tribunal, can be summarized as follows:

• Public yelling and insults^[2]: Mr. Lebrun regularly shouted at and insulted the complainant. He belittled her in front of colleagues with remarks such as: [***]^[3], are you going to finish your wall?”, “[***], you’re still not done?”, “[***], you can’t do it — do you even have your competency cards?” He wrongly blamed her for mistakes like poorly finished joints, and criticized her publicly without verification. He also told her, “Nobody wants to work with you anymore. You can’t handle 10 or 12-inch blocks,” even though testimony from another foreman confirmed the quality of her work.
• Misogynistic remarks^[4]: He made comments like: “That wall still isn’t done? You can’t do it, you’re no good, you’re not strong — this job isn’t for a girl.” When she reminded him that she was capable of laying 10- and 12-inch blocks, he would reply, “That’s not for a girl.” He frequently told her: “You don’t belong here,” “This isn’t your place,” “This is a man’s job, not a woman’s.” He used sexist terms to refer to her, such as « pitoune » (babe).
• Targeted and unjustified monitoring^[5]: Mr. Lebrun stood behind her to observe and criticize her work, checking tasks done by others and blaming her for mistakes that weren’t hers. Even after being coached, he never apologized or retracted his unfounded accusations.
• Disproportionate assignment to cleaning duties^[6]: He repeatedly assigned her to cleaning and sweeping tasks, normally assigned to labourers, while less qualified or uncertified male colleagues were assigned to blocklaying work.
• Contemptuous career redirection suggestions^[7]: Mr. Lebrun suggested she consider “more suitable” professions, such as nail technician, sewing, or tattooing, citing the physical demands of masonry work.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

In its analysis, the Tribunal first sets out the applicable legal framework for determining whether the complainant was the victim of discriminatory psychological harassment in the workplace under the Act respecting labour standards. This involves determining whether the complainant was subjected to a vexatious and discriminatory conduct — that is, based on one of the grounds listed in section 10 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms — and whether that conduct undermined her dignity and created a harmful work climate. The Tribunal specifies that the harassment in this case was sexist, meaning that it was based on the victim’s gender.^[8]

The Tribunal then discusses key concepts related to gender-based discrimination. It notes that such discrimination is often fueled by stereotypes and prejudices, generally unconscious, and that “depriving someone of employment or altering their working conditions on the basis of such stereotypes and prejudices is discriminatory.”^[9] It reminds us that “a stereotype is a generalized and simplified belief about a person as a member of a group, assuming that all members share the same physical, moral, or behavioural traits, attributed through ignorance or assumption. Prejudice, on the other hand, is an opinion or judgment formed without sound basis, often rooted in a stereotype, regardless of the reality of the person concerned.”^[10]

Finally, the Tribunal notes that the discriminatory nature of the conduct is one of the factors to be considered when assessing remedies to be granted, once it finds that the employee has been the victim of psychological harassment.^[11]

In light of the evidence and the credibility granted to the complainant — whose testimony was corroborated by her colleagues — the Tribunal found that she was the victim of sexist psychological harassment:

[92] A reasonable person placed in the same circumstances would conclude that this was vexatious and discriminatory conduct. The complainant was repeatedly subjected to the hostility and animosity of Mr. Lebrun, who insulted and demeaned her in a public and humiliating manner, while also violating her fundamental right to non-discriminatory working conditions.

 

[…]

 

[96] The Tribunal finds that Mr. Lebrun repeatedly asserted that women have no place in this trade, imposed undeserved consequences on the complainant, and created disadvantageous conditions for her to carry out her work by subjecting her to a stream of insults. In short, he deliberately created a toxic work environment by subjecting her to treatment different from that given to her male coworkers — even those less qualified — solely because of her sex.

(our translation and emphasis)

The Tribunal also emphasized the effects that this conduct had on the complainant, including its impact on her self-esteem and psychological state.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant’s dismissal from the worksite was in fact a constructive dismissal linked to the sexist psychological harassment of which she was a victim. In addition to awarding compensation for job loss, Arbitrator Lamy ordered the employer to pay $15,000 in punitive damages, noting that its inaction in the face of previous discriminatory conduct and its failure to take concrete measures had the effect of normalizing such behaviour. This complacency helped reinforce the idea that these behaviours were “normal” and simply to be endured.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

In conclusion, this decision sends a clear message: misogynistic remarks, demeaning assignments, and systematic questioning of women’s competence are not mere “irritants” or clumsy missteps to be tolerated — they are manifestations of sexist psychological harassment.

In male-dominated workplaces, such behaviours can become insidious under the guise of norms or traditions. It is the employer’s responsibility to remain actively vigilant and enforce zero tolerance for any sexist conduct.

To prevent such behaviour and meet their legal obligations, employers should implement effective prevention, reporting, and intervention mechanisms; provide training to staff and managers; raise awareness of unconscious bias; and actively promote a culture of inclusion rooted in sound management practices.

---

[1] Association canadienne des métiers de la truelle (Local 100) v. Maçonnerie M. Demers inc., 2025 CanLII 27403 (QC SAT)

[2] Ibid., paras. 57 and 71

[3] Offensive language omitted and replaced with [***].

[4] Supra note 2, para. 64

[5] Ibid., para. 71

[6] Ibid., para. 76

[7] Ibid., para. 86

[8] Ibid., para. 34

[9] Ibid., para. 37 (our translation)

[10] Ibid., para. 36 (our translation)

[11] Ibid., para. 39