B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Orders Best Buy to Pay Former Employee More Than $60K After Disability Discrimination Finding

Olivia Singh

8/27/20264 min read

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered Best Buy Canada to pay more than $60,000 to a former employee after finding the company discriminated against him when it fired him shortly after he sought accommodations for a serious knee injury.

Vikas Sharma was dismissed from his job at a Best Buy store in Coquitlam in April 2021, weeks after he informed the company that a recurring knee problem limited his ability to stand or walk for extended periods.

In a decision released earlier this month, tribunal member Amber Prince found that Sharma’s knee injury amounted to a disability under the B.C. Human Rights Code and that Best Buy had a legal duty to accommodate him.

Instead, the tribunal found the company ended Sharma’s employment without properly investigating whether reasonable alternatives were available.

Prince ordered Best Buy to pay nearly $38,750 in lost wages, $1,589 for expenses and $20,000 for injury to dignity, along with interest.

Tribunal Finds Disability Was a Factor in Firing

The tribunal rejected Best Buy’s argument that Sharma’s dismissal was simply part of a broader corporate restructuring that eliminated or changed multiple positions.

While restructuring was underway, Prince found the evidence supported an inference that Sharma’s injury was a factor in the decision to terminate his employment.

She wrote that by firing Sharma, Best Buy cut short the process of considering reasonable and practical accommodation options.

The tribunal found the company had not provided evidence showing it had properly assessed whether alternative work, reassignment, transfer, demotion or other accommodations were available.

Prince said Best Buy knew Sharma wanted to keep working and viewed short-term disability leave only as a last resort, in part because it would have meant a reduction in income.

In those circumstances, she found the company knew — or should have known — that Sharma may have preferred a demotion or pay cut over losing his job entirely.

Best Buy Seeking Reconsideration

Best Buy said in a statement that it has filed an application for reconsideration of the tribunal decision and would not comment further while that process is underway.

The company had argued before the tribunal that it was not its usual practice to offer demotions to employees affected by restructuring. It also pointed to a workplace disagreement Sharma had with another employee in early 2021, suggesting it had affected his performance.

But the tribunal found those arguments did not overcome the evidence that Best Buy failed to properly consider accommodation options.

Prince noted that another employee at Sharma’s location had accepted a demotion as part of the company-wide restructuring, weakening Best Buy’s position that such an option was not available or not part of its usual practice.

Employee Had Strong Performance History

According to the tribunal decision, Sharma began working for Best Buy in 2018 and was promoted several times over the next two years, eventually reaching a managerial role at the Coquitlam store.

Prince noted that Sharma had received awards for his “extraordinary efforts” while working during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In February 2021, Sharma experienced a recurrence of knee pain he had first reported months earlier. After seeing doctors, he was advised to limit standing and walking to less than 15 minutes at a time.

That created a direct conflict with the physical demands of his job, which required him to move around the store.

Sharma sought accommodations and also applied for several other positions within Best Buy that would have allowed him to work without prolonged standing. He was not hired for any of those roles.

Accommodation Process Cut Short

The tribunal found that no one at Best Buy had a meaningful discussion with Sharma about reassignment, transfer or another available role before his employment was terminated.

That failure was central to the decision.

Under human rights law, employers are required to accommodate workers with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. That means they must make a real effort to explore reasonable options, rather than assuming no solution exists.

Prince found Best Buy did not meet that duty.

She noted that other employees at Sharma’s level were transferred to other positions or locations during the restructuring, while Sharma was dismissed shortly after raising medical limitations.

Former Employee Felt Betrayed

Sharma told the tribunal that losing his job left him humiliated and devalued after years of service to the company.

Prince wrote that Sharma felt betrayed after helping Best Buy through the pandemic when the company needed him, only to feel unsupported when he was struggling with his injury.

That emotional impact contributed to the tribunal’s award of $20,000 for injury to dignity.

Human rights tribunals commonly award damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect when discrimination has harmed a person beyond lost income alone.

In Sharma’s case, the tribunal found the firing affected not only his finances, but also his sense of worth and fairness after a strong employment record.

Decision Highlights Employer Duty to Accommodate

The ruling serves as a reminder that employers cannot rely on restructuring alone to avoid their human rights obligations when an employee has a disability.

Even during organizational changes, companies must consider whether a worker can be accommodated through modified duties, reassignment, transfer, leave, reduced hours or other reasonable measures.

The tribunal’s decision makes clear that an employer must be able to show it actually assessed those options.

In this case, the tribunal found Best Buy did not do so.

For Sharma, the award represents financial compensation and formal recognition that his disability should have been handled through an accommodation process — not by ending his employment.

For employers, the decision reinforces a broader message: when a worker asks for accommodation, the duty to explore practical solutions cannot be skipped, even during restructuring.

News

Stay updated with the latest BC news stories, subscribe to our newsletter today.

SUBSCRIBE

LINKS

Ethics