Workplace microaggressions – a thousand cuts

Unlike overt harassment, microaggressions are subtle and often unintentional. Micro-aggressive conduct is often normalized in the workplace and may be dismissed as personality clashes or jokes. 

In Ontario, while a single act of microaggression may not always meet the legal threshold for harassment or discrimination, repeated misconduct may contribute to a poisoned work environment and expose employers to liability. 

Microaggressions are everyday verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights toward marginalized groups.  

The term was first coined by psychiatrist Chester Pierce of Harvard University in the 1970s.  Pierce published an article in 1977 about microaggressions in TV commercials. He noticed the interactions with racialized individuals were characterized by put-downs, done in an automatic, pre-conscious, or unconscious fashion. In 2007, Derald Wing Sue and colleagues from Columbia University took Pierce’s definition and produced the first taxonomy of microaggressions into three categories: 

• Microassaults: Overtly biased actions or slurs (e.g., racial tropes, exclusion, or “jokes”). 
• Microinsults: Backhanded or stereotype-reinforcing comments ( “You’re very articulate — for someone like you.”). 
• Microinvalidations: Dismissals of lived experiences ( “Everyone has tough days; she is like that with everyone; don’t make it about race.”). 

Some examples of microaggressions include: 

• Complimenting an employee who is new to Canada by stating, “You speak English so well!” 
• Telling a woman in leadership, “You’re surprisingly assertive for someone your size.” 
• Comments such as: 
• “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.” 
• “You people are so inspiring!”  
• “That’s so gay.” 
• Actions such as a taxi passing by a racialized individual and picking up a white person 

While these comments may seem benign, their cumulative impact can be psychologically and professionally damaging. 

Microaggressions and the law 

The cases below demonstrate that while microaggressions may not always be explicitly named, they are increasingly recognized as contributing to discriminatory environments. 

In Gordon v. Best Buy Canada Inc., 2018 HRTO 1816, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal found that a Black employee endured ongoing racial microaggressions that were sufficiently pervasive to constitute harassment. In Gordon, the supervisor subjected the applicant to numerous race-based derogatory statements such as asking him, “Aren’t all Black people afraid of dogs?” and subsequently stating that he had many Black friends and he thought the fear of dogs was rooted in slavery. The applicant also witnessed the supervisor making derogatory comments in Somali to a female employee of Somali decent. The tribunal found that the employer failed to meaningfully investigate or take remedial action after becoming aware of the conduct. The conduct in question constituted racial harassment and created a poisoned work environment.  

In Graham v. Enterprise Rent a Car Company Canada, 2020 HRTO 424, the tribunal recognized unconscious bias and subtle discrimination when a Black woman was required to produce extra ID and dismissed without explanation. The tribunal saw this as a manifestation of anti-Black stereotypes and discrimination.  

In Cosentino v. Octapharma Canada Inc, 2024 HRTO 860, the tribunal awarded over $100,000 in damages to a worker who was terminated after requesting accommodation due to her caregiving responsibilities. The employer’s dismissive and rigid response to her request — refusing to engage in the accommodation process — was found to be discriminatory and retaliatory. While not framed explicitly as microaggressions, the employer’s repeated invalidation of her needs reflected a broader pattern of subtle discrimination. 

More recently, in dMorriseau v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2025 HRTO 1644, an Indigenous woman alleged that investigative questioning and remarks by board members perpetuated racist stereotypes. Although some claims were dismissed due to lack of particulars, the tribunal acknowledged the existence of anti-Indigenous bias in policing and the potential for microaggressions to reflect systemic discrimination.  

Although tribunals have not formally categorised conduct as micro assault vs. insult vs. invalidation, decisions increasingly examine patterns of subtle bias as actionable; especially where they deter accommodation, exclude someone from full participation, or demean a group.  

Investigating workplace microaggressions  

Investigating microaggressions requires a nuanced, trauma-informed approach. Unlike overt harassment, microaggressions are often subtle, ambiguous, and rooted in unconscious bias. Investigators must be equipped to recognize these behaviours, assess their impact, and proceed appropriately. Below are some strategies for investigators to consider when investigating allegations of microaggressions: 

• Threshold assessment: After interviewing the complainant, it may be appropriate for an investigator to consider whether the alleged conduct, if true, could breach workplace policies or legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the code) or the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). When a standalone allegation does not meet the threshold, the investigator should also consider a pattern or cumulative impact in determining if a reasonable person would find the conduct or course of conduct to be vexatious and unwelcome.  

• Recognizing subtle patterns of behaviour: Microaggressions are often episodic and subtle. Investigators should look for patterns over time or and consider all reported incidents, however minor. Tools such as cross-referencing similar complaints for commonalities such as tone, setting, repetition; timeline mapping may also be helpful in pattern recognition. 

• Ensuring procedural fairness and neutrality: Investigations must be impartial and procedurally sound to maintain legal defensibility. Investigators can ensure the process is procedurally fair by:  

• Avoiding preconceived notions. 

• Clearly communicating the investigation process and expectations to the parties. 

• Providing the parties with ample opportunities to respond to allegations or other evidence which may arise during the course of the investigation. 

• Using trauma-informed interviewing techniques: Microaggressions often involve identity-based harm. Investigators should be sensitive to the emotional impact on the parties. A trauma-informed investigation integrates knowledge about trauma into every stage of the investigative process—from intake to the final report. It acknowledges that trauma can affect memory, behaviour, and communication, and adapts methods to foster safety, trust, and dignity for all participants. By integrating empathy, procedural fairness, and psychological awareness into every stage of the process, investigations can foster safer environments that account for a person’s dignity and lived realities.  

Microaggressions may be subtle, but their impact over time can be profound if left unchecked. Workplace investigators must be equipped to recognize, assess, and address these behaviours within the legal framework of the human rights and occupational health and safety legislation. By applying trauma-informed, procedurally fair, and context-sensitive investigative practices, organizations can foster safer, more inclusive workplaces, while avoiding legal liabilities. 

Sreya Roy is an employment lawyer and workplace investigator at Turnpenney Milne in Toronto.