Creating safe, inclusive workplaces for Indigenous employees is not just a compliance requirement, it’s also a moral and business imperative.  Yet, Indigenous workers in Canada continue to face systemic barriers that often amount to harassment or discrimination under the Human Rights Code.  When these issues arise, employers have a duty to investigate promptly and fairly.  But investigations involving Indigenous employees can be complex, especially when multiple protected grounds intersect, such as ancestry and gender, age and ancestry, or disability and ancestry.

1. Bias in Hiring and Promotion

Many Indigenous employees report being overlooked for promotions or facing bias during recruitment. This often stems from stereotypes about capability or “fit.”  When complaints arise, investigators must probe whether coded language (e.g., “not a cultural fit”) masks discriminatory assumptions.

2. Stereotyping and Microaggressions

Comments like “You don’t look Indigenous” or jokes about Indigenous identity are not harmless. They create a hostile environment. These behaviors may seem subtle but can constitute harassment under the Code. Investigators should assess patterns of conduct, not just isolated incidents.

3. Cultural Exclusion

Rigid scheduling, lack of accommodation for cultural practices, and ignorance of Indigenous traditions can marginalize employees. For example, denying time off for a ceremony may breach the duty to accommodate. Investigators should ask: Were cultural needs communicated and reasonably addressed?

4. Emotional Tax and Psychological Safety

Indigenous employees often feel they must “be on guard” against bias, leading to stress and disengagement. This is compounded when they belong to multiple marginalized groups, for example, an Indigenous woman facing both gender and ancestry-based discrimination. Intersectionality matters: investigators must explore how overlapping identities shape the experience of harm.

5. Bullying That Masks Racism

Bullying complaints involving Indigenous employees often hide racial undertones. Investigators should avoid treating these as mere “personality conflicts.” Instead, they could ask: Would this behavior have occurred if the employee were not Indigenous?

Why Intersectionality Makes Investigations Complex

When complaints involve multiple grounds, such as age and ancestry, gender and ancestry, or disability and ancestry, the harm is not additive; it’s compounded. A woman who is Indigenous may experience discrimination differently than an Indigenous man or a non-Indigenous woman. Investigators could frame questions to capture layered experiences, analyze evidence through an intersectional lens without silos, and avoid assumptions that one ground “explains” the harm. These are the key takeaways:

• Prevention first: Train managers on cultural competency and unconscious bias.
• Investigate thoroughly: When complaints arise, ensure procedural fairness and cultural sensitivity.
• Document intersectionality: Reflect in your report how overlapping identities influenced the experience and the findings.

The bottom line is that preventing harassment and discrimination against Indigenous employees requires more than policies. It also needs proactive inclusion and investigations that recognize complexity.