Panic attacks gave employer constructive knowledge of disability, Board rules

A Newfoundland employer won a human rights case on March 30, 2026, but walked away with an unexpected finding. Adjudicator Justin Caines dismissed Angia Osmond's complaint against Home Beverage & Specialties Inc., operating as Brewery Lane, for discrimination based on disability and sex under the Human Rights Act, 2010. The Board found she had voluntarily resigned. It also found the employer had constructive knowledge of her disability based on observable symptoms in the workplace.

Osmond began working at Brewery Lane in March 2019 and was described in her complaint as having later become the assistant manager, though the Respondent maintained she was never employed in that role. On January 29, 2021, she suffered a panic attack at work after learning co-worker and boyfriend Justin Morgan was being laid off. Manager Adam Healey witnessed the episode and allowed her to leave. No formal record was made.

The following Monday, February 1, 2021, Osmond and Morgan attended a meeting with Ken Reddy. Osmond asked for a couple of days off. The meeting became heated, a customer arrived, and Reddy left. Osmond later received a record of employment in the mail indicating she had quit. She texted Reddy to dispute this; he replied, per her testimony, "sorry you feel that way."

The Board found it was "more likely than not that the Complainant quit her employment with the Respondent," accepting Reddy's account that both employees said they no longer wanted to work there because it was "toxic."

Seeing a panic attack is enough

The disability finding is the case's most significant for employers. A Psychological Assessment Report from August 2021 confirmed Osmond met criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and ADHD. The employer maintained it had no knowledge of any mental health condition during her employment.

The Board rejected that position in part. "A respondent need not have knowledge of a precise diagnosis for the duty under the Act to arise. Rather, actual or constructive knowledge may be established where an employer is aware of observable symptoms, episodes, or functional impacts that reasonably signal the presence of a disability."

That finding was grounded in Healey's direct observation of Osmond's panic attacks and in Osmond's conversations with Reddy about her anxiety and its effects at work.

The checklist that couldn't prove a gender gap

Osmond also alleged she was held to a harsher standard than male co-workers in enforcing a daily closing checklist. The checklist included tasks such as cleaning and tidying washrooms, emptying garbage, sweeping floors, and mopping floors. The Respondent submitted the checklist was a standard guideline for all evening staff, and that Osmond received a one-dollar-per-hour premium for those shifts.

The Board found the checklist applied equally to all employees and that male staff received similar follow-ups when tasks were missed. It acknowledged some tasks could carry gender implications but found the evidence insufficient to establish adverse treatment on the basis of sex.

Near the close of its disability analysis, the Board wrote: "The Board of Inquiry is mindful that mental health disabilities may affect how workplace events are perceived and recalled, and that discrimination may arise even in the absence of overt or intentional conduct."

See Osmond v Home Beverage & Specialties Inc. (Brewery Lane)