Case Summary
In Sharma v. Best Buy Canada (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 173, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found that Best Buy Canada discriminated against an assistant store leader on the basis of physical disability when it terminated his employment during a restructuring. The employee had a torn meniscus, was medically limited to sedentary duties, had an approved accommodation request, and had expressed an interest in other roles. The Tribunal found that the employer had not adequately considered reassignment, transfer, demotion, or other accommodation options before termination.[1]
The Tribunal ordered compensation exceeding $60,000, including lost wages, expenses, and $20,000 for injury to dignity. The decision is a practical reminder that a legitimate restructuring does not end an employer’s obligation to consider accommodation up to the point of undue hardship.[1]
Background
Vikas Sharma worked for Best Buy Canada from 2018 and was promoted to Assistant Store Leader:Mobile and Smart Living in November 2020. His role involved substantial standing, walking, customer support, and department-wide operational responsibilities.[1]
In early 2021, Mr. Sharma developed significant knee and calf pain. Medical assessments ultimately confirmed a medial meniscus tear and gastrocnemius bursitis. His doctor and physiotherapist recommended that he limit standing and walking to no more than 15 minutes at a time and perform sedentary work where possible.[1]
Mr. Sharma advised his store leader about his restrictions, requested help, and applied for other internal positions that might better suit his limitations. On April 20, 2021, Best Buy’s third-party benefits administrator confirmed that his accommodation request was medically supported. Eight days later, the company terminated his employment as part of a restructuring process it called “re-banding.”[1]
The Key Issue
The Tribunal had to decide whether Mr. Sharma’s disability was a factor in the termination and, if so, whether Best Buy had demonstrated that it had explored reasonable accommodation options without undue hardship.
Under the Human Rights Code, an employer cannot discriminate in employment because of physical disability. Once disability is a factor in an adverse employment outcome, the employer must establish that it took reasonable steps to accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship.[1]
What the Evidence Showed
The Tribunal relied on several key facts:
- Mr. Sharma’s restrictions were medically supported, and Best Buy’s HR team had been informed of them.
- His approved accommodation request was active when the termination decision was made.
- He had repeatedly indicated that he wanted to remain employed and had applied for positions that appeared more compatible with sedentary work.
- Best Buy had created a Team Lead role at the store during the restructuring, but did not consider Mr. Sharma for it.
- The evidence showed that another employee had been demoted during the same restructuring, despite Best Buy’s stated position that demotions were not offered.
- The employer did not conduct a documented assessment of reassignment, transfer, modified duties, or other reasonable alternatives.
- Best Buy relied partly on performance concerns, but the Tribunal found there was no contemporaneous documentation supporting a claimed verbal warning or the alleged incident.
The Tribunal’s Decision
Mr. Sharma Had a Protected Disability
The Tribunal rejected Best Buy’s argument that Mr. Sharma’s condition was not sufficiently serious because he had continued working and initially hoped to avoid a short-term disability leave. The evidence established that he could not stand or walk for more than short periods and that his functional limitations affected his regular duties. That was enough to establish a physical disability protected by the Human Rights Code.[1]
Disability Was a Factor in the Termination
The timing was significant. The termination occurred while Mr. Sharma had an active accommodation request and was receiving medical advice about sedentary work. The employer’s awareness of his restrictions, his requests for support, and the absence of consideration for alternative roles supported the conclusion that disability was a factor in the decision.[1]
A Legitimate Restructuring Was Not Enough
The Tribunal accepted that Best Buy’s broader re-banding process was a real restructuring. However, that did not answer the accommodation question. The employer was still required to consider whether Mr. Sharma could be reassigned, transferred, demoted, or otherwise accommodated before his employment ended.
The Tribunal found that Best Buy had not shown it completed that analysis or that accommodation would have created undue hardship. By terminating Mr. Sharma when it did, the company “foreclosed” the investigation of reasonable and practical accommodation options.[1]
Remedies Awarded
The Tribunal ordered Best Buy to pay:
| Remedy | Amount / direction |
| Lost wages | $38,746 |
| Medical and litigation-related expenses | $1,589 |
| Injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect | $20,000 |
| Additional relief | Pre- and post-judgment interest, compensation for adverse tax effects of a lump-sum wage payment, and a declaration that the conduct was discriminatory |
The lost-wage amount reflected the Tribunal’s finding that Mr. Sharma would likely have been reassigned to a team lead position at a lower base salary, less a prior settlement received from Best Buy.[1]
Why This Decision Matters for Employers
This decision is not a warning against restructuring. Employers may reorganize operations, remove positions, and make legitimate business decisions. The risk arises when an employee with known medical restrictions is removed from the organization without an individualized and documented assessment of accommodation options.
For small businesses and nonprofits, the accommodation process does not always require creating a new job. It does require asking the right questions, documenting the answers, and exploring reasonable alternatives before concluding that no workable option exists.
Employer Takeaways
Pause Before Finalizing a Termination
If an employee has disclosed a disability, has medical restrictions, or has an active accommodation request, pause the termination process. Confirm whether the employee’s condition could be a factor and whether any statutory or human-rights obligations are engaged.
Explore Real Options, Not Just the Existing Role
Review temporary modified duties, alternative openings, reassignment, transfer, reduced or altered hours, and, where appropriate, roles at a lower level. The duty to accommodate is an individualized assessment, not a single yes-or-no question about whether the current job can continue unchanged.
Document the Accommodation Analysis
Keep a written record of the restrictions received, roles considered, discussions with the employee, operational constraints, cost information, and why each option was or was not workable. A well-documented analysis is essential if the decision is later questioned.
Avoid Unsupported Performance Rationales
If performance concerns form part of the decision, they should be documented when they arise and applied consistently. Undocumented concerns raised only after a dispute begins are unlikely to carry much weight.
Train Managers to Escalate Early
Managers should know that a request for medical restrictions, flexible duties, or a transfer may trigger the accommodation process. Prompt escalation to HR helps ensure the organization considers options before a restructure or termination becomes final.
Final Thoughts
The central lesson from Sharma is simple: a business restructuring does not cancel the duty to accommodate. Before terminating an employee with known restrictions, employers should make a deliberate, documented assessment of what alternatives can reasonably be considered. Doing so protects both the employee and the organization.
Source
[1] *Sharma v. Best Buy Canada (No. 2)*, 2026 BCHRT 173 (CanLII)
