Hyder Mehdi v. Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc., 2025 BCHRT 203
Date Issued: August 19, 2025
File: CS-006262
Indexed as: Hyder Mehdi v. Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc., 2025 BCHRT 203
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Syed Hyder Mehdi
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Robin Dean
Counsel for the Complainant: Evan Harvey
Counsel for the Respondent: Michael Korbin
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Syed Hyder Mehdi brings this complaint of discrimination under s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. He says that Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc. discriminated against him in the following ways:
a. reducing his hours as a barista and failing to accommodate him after he was injured in a car accident in 2019 [the 2019 Allegation];
b. reducing his hours and duties as a barista after he requested formal accommodation in 2020 [the 2020 Allegation]; and
c. ultimately terminating his employment [the Termination Allegation].
[2] Starbucks denies discriminating and brings an application to dismiss Mr. Mehdi’s complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, as permitted by the Tribunal in the Case Path Pilot process. It concedes for the purposes of this application that Mr. Mehdi had a physical disability and suffered an adverse impact when it terminated his employment. It argues, however, that the 2019 Allegation has no reasonable prospect of success because it did not reduce Mr. Mehdi’s hours in 2019, nor did it know about Mr. Mehdi’s need for accommodation at that time. It also argues that the 2020 Allegation has no reasonable prospect of success because it appropriately accommodated Mr. Mehdi. In terms of the Termination Allegation, it says it had solely non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Mr. Mehdi’s employment, namely what it characterizes as employee misconduct.
[3] Because I am satisfied that Starbucks is reasonably certain to prove a solely non-discriminatory reason for terminating Mr. Mehdi’s employment, I dismiss the Termination Allegation. Further, I find that Starbucks is reasonably certain to prove that it met its accommodation obligations in 2019. Therefore, I dismiss the 2019 Allegation. However, I am not satisfied that Starbucks is reasonably certain to prove it accommodated Mr. Mehdi up to the point of undue hardship in 2020, before his termination. For that reason, I do not dismiss the 2020 Allegation. That allegation alone will proceed.
[4] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I refer only to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[5] Starbucks hired Mr. Mehdi to work as a barista on or around June 25, 2018. It terminated Mr. Mehdi’s employment on or around June 22, 2020. As a barista, Mr. Mehdi had a number of responsibilities, including warming food, carrying out and throwing away the garbage, brewing coffee, and interacting with customers.
[6] On September 20, 2019, Mr. Mehdi says he was injured in a car accident, which he says limited his ability to perform his work responsibilities. He says he immediately told his manager about the accident and informed her that he could not carry anything heavy. According to Mr. Mehdi, for the remainder of 2019, he continued to advise Starbucks that he was experiencing neck and back pain, asking to be exempt from carrying anything over five pounds. Mr. Mehdi says that despite these requests, Starbucks did not accommodate him and continued to require that he carry objects heavier than five pounds, such as the garbage.
[7] Mr. Mehdi says that Starbucks did not offer him accommodation until the middle of January 2020, when it began to accommodate him beyond what he needed. He says, however, that in doing so, Starbucks changed his job duties and reduced his hours by approximately 10-13 hours per week.
[8] For its part, Starbucks said that it was not aware that Mr. Mehdi required modified work duties until January 2020 after receiving complaints from Mr. Mehdi’s coworkers because he was not performing all of his duties as a barista. Before that, Starbucks says that Mr. Mehdi told his manager that the accident was “minor” and said nothing about accommodation. Once Starbucks became aware that Mr. Mehdi might have limitations, it says it gave Mr. Mehdi paperwork to complete with his doctor. Mr. Mehdi completed the paperwork, and Starbucks says that as a result of the information in the forms, Mr. Mehdi was accommodated at work. According to Starbucks, Mr. Mehdi was assigned to working the till, warming, and delivering customer drinks to the bar for pickup.
[9] In terms of the reduction in hours, it admits that Mr. Mehdi worked reduced hours in January and February 2020. It says that the reduction in hours was experienced universally by the baristas at Mr. Mehdi’s store due to a slowdown in visitor traffic in the first two months of the year. Starbucks further explains that the reduction in Mr. Mehdi’s hours was because of his significant restrictions, which meant that it could not schedule him to perform his full duties. Additionally, it says that Mr. Mehdi required additional training at this time in order to work in beverage preparation.
[10] On January 10, 2020, Mr. Mehdi met with his manager and his supervisor. Mr. Mehdi surreptitiously recorded the meeting, a copy and transcription of which is in the materials before me. I have listened to the copy and read the transcription. As I understand it, during the meeting, Mr. Mehdi and the manager discuss that Mr. Mehdi was limited to lifting no more than five pounds. The manager tells Mr. Mehdi that she has sent his paperwork to head office because she was not allowed to modify Mr. Mehdi’s duties on her own. In the conversation, Mr. Mehdi mentions that he previously did the garbage run three times, which aggravated his back. During the conversation, the manager seems to express some concern that the limitations will be difficult for Starbucks to accommodate given Mr. Mehdi’s job description, saying that the five-pound restriction “means no RTD in bulk, that means a five-pound bag of coffee and below, so what could you do? Because based on the job description…”. Here, Mr. Mehdi cuts the manager off; however, she says later that they will have to “figure it out”.
[11] Mr. Mehdi says that in the January 10, 2020 conversation, the manager told him that a refusal to do garbage runs is a refusal to do his job. According to Mr. Mehdi, the manager told him that his supervisors see the refusal as insubordination and hardship for the rest of the team. As I understand the conversation, this was said in the context of the manager explaining to Mr. Mehdi that his supervisors and co-workers did not know why he was not able to complete some tasks because they were not aware of his injury.
[12] During the January 10, 2020 conversation, the manager asks Mr. Mehdi not to “lift his voice” when speaking with his co-workers. She says:
Ok, and when you do coach on the floor, don’t lift your voice. Because I’ve had complaints….Hyder, you you you have changed a bit, getting aggravated and agitated, and it’s coming out. It’s coming out in the way you speak to them. So you lash at them. You can’t yell at them on the floor, and they can’t yell at you.
[13] After the January 10, 2020 conversation, Mr. Mehdi allegedly yelled at his co-workers on three separate occasions [the Yelling Incidents], as well as went through the phone of one of his co-workers [the Phone Incident]. Regarding the Yelling Incidents, Starbucks issued Mr. Mehdi two written warnings dated January 15, 2020 and February 21, 2020. The February 21 warning said that Mr. Mehdi’s behaviour was unacceptable and that another violation would lead to his termination. Starbucks says that after the final written warning was issued, Mr. Mehdi again yelled at one of his co-workers on March 16, 2020.
[14] In the materials before me are two contemporaneous, written reports from Mr. Mehdi’s co-workers. Starbucks requested the Mr. Mehdi’s co-workers provide the written reports after the co-workers came to the manager to tell her about Mr. Mehdi yelling at them. In the reports, Mr. Mehdi’s co-workers allege that Mr. Mehdi yelled at them. One of the reports is supported by another contemporaneous report from a co-worker who says he witnessed one of the Yelling Incidents.
[15] Starbucks says it gathered these written reports before the store closed on March 22, 2020 due to the pandemic, but it was not able to investigate the matter until the store reopened on May 5, 2020. Starbucks says that when asked about the allegations in May 2020, Mr. Mehdi said only, “I behaved since you asked me.” After the store reopened, Starbucks also spoke again with the individuals who made the reports, and they confirmed what they had written about the Yelling Incidents.
[16] Mr. Mehdi denies the Yelling and Phone Incidents. According to Mr. Mehdi, he did not yell at his co-workers on any of the occasions alleged by Starbucks. He says that on one of the occasions, his co-worker is the one who yelled at him.
[17] Starbucks ultimately terminated Mr. Mehdi’s employment on June 22, 2020. Starbucks says it decided to terminate his employment because of the Yelling Incidents. The termination letter states:
This letter is to confirm our discussion today June 22, 2020 during which you were notified that your employment with Starbucks Coffee Canada will be separated effective June 22, 2020 as a result of not meeting performance expectations. You were given a written warning on January 15, 2020 for yelling at your co-worker and were issued a final written warning on February 21, 2020 also for yelling at your co-worker. On March 16, 2020 there was a report that you yelled at your co-worker and you did not deny it upon questioning. Due to the temporary closure of your store due to COVID-19, we were unable to follow up on this incident until recently. We have, however, now confirmed that you repeated your pattern of inappropriate behaviour, even after multiple warnings.
III DECISION
[18] Starbucks applies to dismiss Mr. Mehdi’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on Starbucks to establish the basis for dismissal.
[19] Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing.
[20] The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.
[21] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority,2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission,[1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.
[22] Many human rights complaints raise issues of credibility. This is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to deny an application to dismiss: Evans v. University of British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 1026 at para. 34. However, if there are foundational or key issues of credibility, the complaint must go to a hearing: Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para 67.
[23] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Mehdi will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in employment, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he did that, the burden would shift to Starbucks to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[24] Again, the first two factors of the test set out in Moore are not in dispute on this application. Starbucks’ argument centres on the third factor; it says that Mr. Mehdi has no reasonable prospect of proving a nexus between his physical disability and the end of his employment. More specifically, Starbucks argues that it is reasonably certain to prove at a hearing that it terminated Mr. Mehdi’s employment for solely non-discriminatory reasons – i.e. what it frames as employee misconduct. In terms of the reduction in his duties and hours, Starbucks says that this allegation should also be dismissed because the evidence shows that once informed that Mr. Mehdi needed accommodations, Starbucks did accommodate Mr. Mehdi in accordance with his limitations and restrictions.
[25] Turning first to the Termination Allegation, Mr. Mehdi says that the timing of the termination supports an inference that his disability was a factor. The Tribunal has consistently held that the timing of an event can support an inferred connection between a protected characteristic and an adverse impact: Parry v. Vanwest Collee, 2005 BCHRT 310 at para. 63; Morris v. BC Rail, 2003 BCHRT 14. Timing alone, however, is not always sufficient to prove nexus. While the Tribunal may draw inferences based on the timing of events. The Tribunal has explained that:
an inference arising from the timing of a termination is just that, an inference. It can be strengthened by other evidence to support discrimination or it can be displaced by evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for the termination: Harris v. Rize Alliance Properties and another, 2019 BCHRT 223 at para. 31.
[26] I disagree that the timing of the events here could support an inference of discrimination. Mr. Mehdi notified Starbucks that he needed accommodation in January 2020 at the latest. His employment was terminated in June 2020, five months later and more than a month after he returned to work upon the store reopening. There is no information whether during May and June 2020, he still required accommodation after returning to work. Given this, the request for accommodation and the termination are too attenuated in my view to support a nexus.
[27] However, even if the timing did support an inferred connection between Mr. Mehdi’s disability and his termination, I find that any inference of discrimination that could be drawn given the timing of events is displaced by Starbucks’ evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for the termination. Starbucks has provided the manager’s affidavit with documents supporting Starbucks’ claim that Mr. Mehdi’s employment was terminated due to the information that it had at the time, which was that Mr. Mehdi had been yelling at his co-workers. Starbucks says it warned Mr. Mehdi twice not to yell at his co-workers, including a final warning about possible termination if another incident occurred. Starbucks’s evidence is that it was informed another incident did occur. In the materials before me are reports of Mr. Mehdi yelling at his co-workers. Starbucks investigated these reports and concluded that it would terminate Mr. Mehdi’s employment.
[28] Both parties say that credibility is an issue here. In particular, the parties recognize a factual dispute about whether Mr. Mehdi yelled at his co-workers. However, I do not find the credibility issue to be foundational or key. The question before me on this application is not whether Mr. Mehdi engaged in misconduct: Mema v. City of Nanaimo (No. 2), 2023 BCHRT 91 at para. 303. Rather, the question before me is whether there is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Mehdi proving his protected characteristics factored into the termination. On the whole of the materials before me, I am persuaded there is no reasonable prospect that Mr. Mehdi could establish a connection between his disability and the termination. Starbucks is reasonably certain to prove it believed at the time of the termination that Mr. Mehdi had been yelling at his co-workers, and that it acted on this belief to keep the workplace safe and respectful. I am satisfied, based on the materials before me, Starbucks is reasonably certain to establish a solely non-discriminatory reason for the termination — Mr. Mehdi’s alleged misconduct — which Mr. Mehdi does not say was related to any disability. I dismiss the Termination Allegation.
[29] However, Mr. Mehdi also alleges that after he informed Starbucks he had physical limitations performing his job as a barista, Starbucks reduced his hours and job responsibilities, including jobs that he could have performed.
[30] Starbucks denies cutting Mr. Mehdi’s hours between September and December 2019. It says that any change in his work duties was a result of his limitations and restrictions and a part of the accommodation process. Starbucks provides contemporaneous logs, which it says show that Mr. Mehdi worked approximately 30 hours per week in 2019 both before and after his accident. However, it admits that Mr. Mehdi’s hours were reduced in the first months of 2020 for a variety of reasons, including “As a result of [the] significant restrictions on his ability to lift, carry, push, and pull we were unable to schedule him to perform his full duties”.
[31] I am satisfied that Mr. Mehdi’s 2019 Allegation has no reasonable prospect of success, and I dismiss it. First, the time logs provide contemporaneous documentary evidence which satisfies me Mr. Mehdi’s allegation that he worked fewer hours after his accident in 2019 does not go beyond speculation and conjecture.
[32] Second, I am persuaded that Starbucks is reasonably certain to prove it met its accommodation obligations in 2019. In the accommodation process, both Mr. Mehdi and Starbucks had obligations. Generally speaking, if a person requires accommodation, it is their responsibility to bring forward the relevant facts: Central Okanagan School No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970 at p. 994.
[33] Mr. Mehdi says that Starbucks did not accommodate him in 2019 and required him to lift heavy garbage bags on three occasions despite him asking for accommodations. Starbucks says that Mr. Mehdi told the manager that the accident was “minor” and did not inform Starbucks that he needed accommodations until December 2019, at which point it took steps to accommodate him.
[34] I do not find a hearing is necessary to test this conflicting evidence. The contemporaneous documentary evidence supports Starbucks’ version of events, which is that Mr. Mehdi did not tell it about his limitations and need for accommodation until December 2019. This contemporaneous documentary evidence includes:
a. Mr. Mehdi’s medical records, which indicate that Mr. Mehdi’s doctor did not recommend against lifting more than five pounds until January 9, 2020, when the doctor filled out the forms Starbucks provided Mr. Mehdi;
b. The transcript and copy of the January 10, 2020 conversation with the manager, which indicate that Mr. Mehdi’s colleagues were unaware of his need for accommodations and were therefore growing frustrated by his refusal to carry out certain tasks related to his job duties; and
c. The functional abilities form, filled out on January 9, 2020, which supports the manager’s affidavit that Mr. Mehdi did not notify her of his limitations until December 2019, at which point she provided him with the forms necessary to start the accommodation process.
[35] However, I am not satisfied considering the material before me, including Starbucks’ admission that it was unable to schedule Mr. Mehdi to perform his full duties, that the 2020 Allegation has no reasonable prospect of success. Starbucks admits that Mr. Mehdi’s job changed, including working fewer hours, as a result of his limitations and restrictions. In my view, that is enough to take Mr. Mehdi’s complaint out of the realm of speculation and conjecture.
[36] Turning to whether Starbucks is reasonably certain to prove a justification defence, the evidence and argument before me is thin on this point. Starbucks says that Mr. Mehdi’s hours were reduced as a result of his own requests for accommodation and because it had to train him on new duties. However, I am not satisfied that Starbucks is reasonably certain to prove that it could not have done anything else reasonable or practical to avoid reducing Mr. Mehdi’s hours. I find that a hearing is necessary to determine whether these changes to Mr. Mehdi’s tasks and schedule were unavoidable—i.e. that Starbucks would have experienced undue hardship otherwise. Starbucks may prove at a hearing that there was no other way to accommodate Mr. Mehdi without experiencing undue hardship. However, I am not satisfied based on the material before me at this stage that it is reasonably certain to prove that it could not have done anything else reasonable or practical to avoid the alleged negative impacts on Mr. Mehdi.
[37] Finally, Starbucks argues that Mr. Mehdi’s allegations prior to his termination—i.e. the 2019 and 2020 Allegations — are time barred and should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code. However, Starbucks did not raise timeliness in their response to the complaint, and the Tribunal permitted Starbucks to bring this application to dismiss under s. 27(1)(c) only. Starbucks does not provide any explanation for why it should be granted leave to argue s. 27(1)(g) now, or why it did not raise s. 27(1)(g) earlier. I therefore deny the application under s. 27(1)(g) and do not consider it further in this decision.
IV CONCLUSION
[38] I dismiss the Termination Allegation.
[39] I dismiss the 2019 Allegation.
[40] I do not dismiss the 2020 Allegation. The 2020 Allegation will proceed.
Robin Dean
Tribunal Member