An employee can experience upsetting treatment at work without having the evidence needed to show that a protected characteristic played a role. Moradi v. Whole Foods Market , 2026 BCHRT 216, makes that evidentiary distinction unusually clear. On October 14, 2026, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint alleging race and disability discrimination, including allegations concerning performance reviews, workplace harassment and termination. Faranak Moradi worked in a grocery store's prepared foods department during a probationary period in late 2018 and early 2019. She alleged that colleagues mistreated her because she was Iranian, that she received unfair assessments and that management failed to accommodate health conditions. The employer disputed discrimination and relied on contemporaneous performance evaluations, safety concerns, an internal investigation and communications seeking clarification of medical restrictions. The Tribunal didn't decide whether every unpleasant interaction occurred exactly as described. This was a dismissal application under section 27(1)(c), not a hearing at which contested facts were finally resolved. Whole Foods had to show that the complaint lacked a reasonable prospect of success. Moradi didn't file responding submissions.
This is a preview. Full access requires an eligible Intelligence membership.