A bus driver’s attempt to assert his right to free speech ended in a courtroom defeat after a simple act of kindness was deemed a breach of professional conduct. Robert Glen Harrison, a driver for Luxury Transport contracted to Simon Fraser University, lost his job after complimenting a construction flagperson.
The incident unfolded on a rainy day in April 2024. Harrison stopped the shuttle, opened the door, and told the flagperson she was “unbelievably beautiful,” suggesting she had the potential to be a model. He believed he was offering a harmless, uplifting moment to someone working in challenging conditions.
However, the flagperson didn’t share his perspective. She reported the unsolicited comment to SFU security, who documented her statement along with that of a witness. This report triggered a chain of events that ultimately led to Harrison’s dismissal.
SFU didn’t directly demand Harrison’s firing, but informed Luxury Transport of the complaint and prohibited him from driving on campus. The company offered him an alternative route, but Harrison refused, leading to his termination. The core issue, according to the company, wasn’t the compliment itself, but Harrison’s unwavering belief that his actions were entirely appropriate.
During questioning, Harrison insisted the flagperson had “loved” the attention and saw nothing wrong with his words. He even asserted his right to free speech, proclaiming “this was not Russia” and that he could say whatever he pleased. This stance deeply concerned Luxury Transport, who emphasized the negative impact his comments had on the flagperson.
Harrison responded by requesting all documentation SFU had provided to Luxury Transport, citing privacy concerns. What he received, however, were pages entirely blacked out, further fueling his frustration and leading to a series of legal challenges. He argued SFU had reported false information to his employer without seeking his side of the story.
The commissioner investigating the case found SFU had acted reasonably in gathering information before requesting Harrison’s removal from campus routes, noting Harrison had admitted to making the comments. The commissioner also pointed out that Harrison introduced new complaints during the judicial review that hadn’t been raised initially.
The judge refused to consider these new arguments, stating SFU hadn’t been given a chance to respond. The court ultimately dismissed Harrison’s case, ordering him to pay legal costs to Luxury Transport. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the boundaries between personal expression and professional conduct, even when intentions are perceived as positive.
The case highlights the complexities of navigating free speech in the workplace and the importance of considering the impact of one’s words on others. It underscores the responsibility employees have to maintain professional boundaries, even in seemingly casual interactions.
