A BC insurance broker has been awarded more than $100,000 after a judge ruled her company’s response to a client who began stalking her was insensitive and unprofessional.

BC Supreme Court Justice Lorianna Bennett said Johnston Meier Insurance Agencies was well aware that a client was stalking insurance broker Amber Hedrick but failed to do anything meaningful about it, and its conduct directly contributed to her illnesses and inability to return to work.

In a July 6 BC Supreme Court decision, Justice Bennett described the company’s handling of the matter as “insensitive, unprofessional, or improper.”

The decision said Hedrick had worked at the Johnston Meier Insurance Agencies for several years when she began being stalked and harassed by one of her clients.

“By the summer of 2021, the stalking intensified and became more frequent. Ms. Hedrick would find the stalker waiting for her in the work parking lot. She discovered him loitering in the strata development where she lived. On multiple occasions, Ms. Hedrick confronted the stalker and told him that his behaviour was inappropriate but to no avail,” the decision reads.

“She eventually purchased security cameras for her home and contacted the police for guidance. She understood from her conversations with the police that there was little they could do for her unless the stalker trespassed onto her property.”

In one incident, she noticed the stalker’s truck following her at a distance on the highway.

“This was the tipping point for her,” the Justice said, noting that she began to feel unsafe.

She spoke to her immediate manager, David Ebner, about it. The stalker was her point of contact for one of the firm’s biggest clients.

She didn’t want the firm to lose this client, and she didn’t want to lose the commission. She also thought the situation could worsen if she gave up the account, since the stalker was clearly obsessed with her.

The decision said Ebner was “appropriately sympathetic” and said he wasn’t sure what to do, but he would come up with a plan and speak to his wife.

However, it didn’t work out like that.

The decision went through a play-by-play account of what took place.

In the brief conversation with Ebner’s wife, Hedrick felt “victim shamed,” and the situation worsened when Ebner refused to let Hedrick work remotely.

Her monthly pay draw was reduced from $10,000 per month to $7,000 per month, and then put back up to $8,300.

She asked for a week’s vacation, and Ebner told her “leave” had to go through the human resources department and to drop her “attitude.”

Human resources put her onto the Workers’ Compensation Board of BC, and in late 2021 Hedrick went on sick leave.

“Despite being on leave, the stalking continued, and by November 2021, it escalated further when the stalker showed up at the front door of Ms. Hedrick’s residence. Ms. Hedrick again contacted the police,” the Justice said.

Her mental health continued to get worse, and she went on disability benefits.

WorkSafeBC concluded Hedrick had suffered permanent injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression due, in part, to the behaviour of the stalker and of her manager.

WorkSafeBC said she would have difficulty returning to work, and in late 2022, she was terminated.

She then sued for wrongful dismissal.

Hedrick argued that Ebner’s lack of support regarding the stalker was a significant factor in her inability to continue working.

She argued that Johnston Meier Insurance failed to facilitate a safe work environment and then made it impossible to return to work, accusing the company of choosing profits over a loyal and dedicated long-standing employee.

In its defence, Johnston Meier Insurance said it had no choice because WorkSafeBC had said she could not return to work.

It also argued it took reasonable steps to support Hedrick from the stalker.

The Justice didn’t agree.

Much of the Justice’s criticism is levelled at Hedrick’s manager, David Ebner, who had not just a moral duty to act but also a legal one.

“He had the authority and ability to, if necessary, communicate a clear message either to the stalker or to the stalker’s employer about the unwanted and inappropriate behaviour. He also had the authority and managerial expertise to further explore any inclination that Ms. Hedrick may have had to keep the stalker’s employer as a client,” the Justice said.

Instead, Ebner “did nothing” except saying he would speak to his wife about it.

“I accept that Ms. Hedrick was at a complete loss about what to do about the stalker and his conduct. This is precisely why she went to her employer,” the Justice said, adding that he failed to take positive steps to protect Hedrick.

Justice Bennett said Ebner’s testimony lacked both credibility and reliability.

“Mr. Ebner had a detailed recollection of events when it favoured him. Otherwise, his answers lacked substance and were inconsistent,” the Justice said.

Ultimately, the Justice ruled the company owed Hedrick nine months’ pay in lieu of notice at $116,136 but stopped short of ordering aggravated or punitive damages, saying Ebner’s wasn’t “malicious.”

The company is also on the hook for the court costs.

There’s no mention in the decision about what happened to the stalker or whether the situation was ever resolved.