Reference no: EM133049401

People can make biased decisions with the best of intentions. In 2014, this reality hit home for the Brandon Police Services when the Manitoba Human Rights Commission awarded damages to Billy-Jo Nachuk for discrimination that he experienced at the hands of three on-duty police officers. Discrimination, even when inadvertent, can compromise the ethics that organizations represent with their mandate, mission, vision, and values. How and why do these types of incidents occur?

On April 16, 2011, Billy-Jo Nachuk, a decorated veteran suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, made a courageous decision. The anxiety associated with his condition had kept him out of public spaces for two full years but now he had Gambler, a service dog specifically trained to help him manage his symptoms. With Gambler accompanying him, Mr. Nachuk felt comfortable enough to socialize at the local Keystone Motor Inn's restaurant and bar. Unfortunately, Keystone management felt his service dog was merely a pet. Despite explanations and the provision of official service dog certification papers, Keystone management complained about the presence of the dog to three on-duty police officers who were also patronizing the restaurant. The formal decision released from the Human Rights Commission of Manitoba states that the following exchange then took place:

Mr. Nachuk alleges that one officer asked, "So what's with the dog?" to which he replied "it is a service dog." Mr. Nachuk describes the officer as responding "aggressively," "Why? You're not blind!" Mr. Nachuk tried to explain his situation but was interrupted by the same officer who said, "You're not going to be doing a search with that dog tonight, either." He continued to try and explain what kind of dog his service dog was but the officers "refused to listen." A second officer told him that the manager wanted the dog out and that Mr. Nachuk "was very close to being thrown in jail." At this point, "feeling totally degraded" he took his coat and he and his dog Gambler were escorted out of the bar by the police.

Mr. Nachuk filed a human rights complaint for discrimination based on disability as a result of this incident. In April 2014 the Commission agreed that discrimination had taken place and awarded him damages. The Brandon Police Services have since improved their training standards regarding disability rights. But the question remains: How could three officers working together make the mutual decision that Mr. Nachuk's dog was not a "legitimate" service dog in the face of clear evidence otherwise, most notably his official service dog papers? Is it possible that the fact that Mr. Nachuk is an Aboriginal influenced the officers? First Nations people are often unfairly stereotyped and some bands have a history of conflict with legal officials resulting from ongoing rights and land disputes.

This conflict has led to tension and mistrust between some Aboriginal people and police services.

•  What does the situation experienced by Billy-Jo Nachuk tell us about our own capacity for bias and decision-making errors?