B.C. lab ordered to pay $32,000 for patient discrimination

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover B.C. lab ordered to pay $32,000 for patient discrimination?

Of the 38 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 68% are rated left, 27% are rated centre, 5% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 40. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.

Is B.C. lab ordered to pay $32,000 for patient discrimination left or right?

Neither side dominates it. Of the 38 rated outlets on this story, 68% are rated left, 27% are rated centre, 5% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.

Is the coverage of B.C. lab ordered to pay $32,000 for patient discrimination biased?

B.C. lab ordered to pay $32,000 for patient discrimination is one event reported by 40 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.

Which side is not reporting B.C. lab ordered to pay $32,000 for patient discrimination?

When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.

Which outlets covered B.C. lab ordered to pay $32,000 for patient discrimination?

40 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.

What was the outcome of the human rights tribunal ruling?

The British Columbia human rights tribunal ordered LifeLabs and its subsidiary Excelleris Technologies to pay $32,000 in damages. The ruling found the companies discriminated against transgender and non-binary patients through misgendering and outing them.

What specific instances of discrimination were reported?

The tribunal found that a non-binary person was told to choose male or female for services and was outed in a public space. One transgender patient could not update their gender marker, and another avoided cancer screening to prevent misgendering.

What changes are required of LifeLabs?

LifeLabs must update its policies and staff training concerning gender identity. The company is also required to make private spaces available for transgender and non-binary patients to discuss their identity.