Moradi v. Whole Foods Market, 2026 BCHRT 216
Date Issued: October 14, 2026
File(s): CS-000825
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:
Faranak (Faren) Moradi
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Whole Foods Market
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Jonathan Chapnick
For the Complainant: No submissions
Counsel for the Respondent: Marino Sveinson and Kris Liset
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Faranak (Faren) Moradi alleges that Whole Foods Market discriminated against her in the area of employment based on the grounds of physical disability, mental disability, and race in contravention of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. Ms. Moradi was employed by Whole Foods as a probationary employee at one of its stores [Store] from November 9, 2018 to January 23, 2019. She describes herself as “a Persian female immigrant” with “OCD and anxiety,” for whom “English is not [a] native language.” She alleges various acts and omissions of discrimination during her time at the Store, and says Whole Foods discriminated in terminating her employment.
[2] Whole Foods denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint or a part of it under ss. 27(1)(c) and (g) of the Code. It says most of Ms. Moradi’s allegations were filed late and, in any event, the complaint as a whole has no reasonable prospect of success.
[3] Whole Foods filed its dismissal application and delivered it to Ms. Moradi on April 28, 2025. Ms. Moradi did not file a response to the application, despite having notice of it and an opportunity to do so.
[4] I find I can most efficiently decide the application under s. 27(1)(c). For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Ms. Moradi’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The complaint is therefore dismissed.
[5] To make my decision, I have considered the complaint (including amendments), the response to the complaint, and the arguments and evidence filed by Whole Foods in support of the present application. In my reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain what I decided. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[6] The following information is drawn from the materials before me and is set out here as background. It is not meant to be exhaustive, and it is not in dispute.
[7] The Store’s general information guide for employees [Guide] states that each store has a “store team leader” and one or more “associate store team leaders,” who together are accountable for things like the store’s operations, financial performance, and customer service. They oversee “team leaders,” who, in turn, manage and supervise the store’s front-line employees, or “team members.” Team members are accountable to their team leader, and are also “expected and encouraged to hold fellow Team Members accountable for their performance.”
[8] The Guide states that there is a three-month “probationary evaluation period” for new team members at the Store. If a new team member’s “work proves satisfactory during the … probationary evaluation period,” their team leader may recommend them for continued employment at the Store, in which case a “team vote” is held. The probationary employee’s co-workers vote to determine if they will continue with the team. If the employee is not successful during the probationary period, they may be dismissed.
[9] During her probationary period, Ms. Moradi worked in the Store’s Prepared Foods Department and was specifically assigned to the Salad Bar. At that time, probationary employees were subject to performance reviews, which involved a determination regarding whether they were ready to be brought up for a vote. Employee performance was reviewed in four areas – teamwork, policy compliance, customer service, and safety – and they were assessed as either meeting expectations or needing improvement. As I discuss below, Ms. Moradi had three such “new member reviews” during her time at the Store. At each review, Ms. Moradi was assessed as needing improvement in most or all areas, and the reviewer determined that she was not ready to be brought up for a vote.
[10] The first review took place on November 20, 2018. On the form documenting the review, Ms. Moradi is marked as needing improvement in all areas and is directed to follow standard operating procedures, take directions and feedback from other team members, and do what is asked of her.
[11] On December 5, Ms. Moradi experienced dizziness at work and was accompanied by a team leader in the Prepared Foods Department [Team Leader CC] to a nearby hospital. I will refer to this as the Dizziness Incident.
[12] On December 10, Ms. Moradi delivered a letter to the associate store team leader [Associate Store Leader], raising health and safety concerns and alleging bullying and harassment. She said she was concerned about hygiene at the Store, and claimed that some of her co-workers were not being hygienic – they were not cleaning properly and did not care if people got sick. She added that they were not helping her, they were rude to her, and they were bullying her with the aim of making her quit. She claimed that they were talking about her in their language (not English), and laughing at her and at her name. She alleged that some of her co-workers were discriminating against her because she was not Filipino.
[13] On December 11, Ms. Moradi provided Whole Foods with a doctor’s note, which stated that she had been diagnosed with vertigo but was feeling better and was able to work with “steady movement.”
[14] The second performance review took place on December 12 with Team Leader CC [Second Review]. On the form documenting the review, Ms. Moradi is marked as needing improvement in all areas except for safety. Team Leader CC states on the form that Ms. Moradi “has not been able to follow instructions from supervisors or seasoned team members,” follows “her own procedures instead of following the standard [operating] procedures,” and “has shown a pattern of not focusing on her tasks.” The form indicates that there would be a further performance review, and it warns that failure to improve her work performance could result in corrective action up to and including termination.
[15] On December 14, Ms. Moradi emailed the Associate Store Leader and the Store’s human resources business partner [HR Partner], expressing concerns about the Second Review and alleging again that some of her co-workers were harassing her. The HR Partner responded that they would investigate her harassment allegations. In addition, the HR Partner provided a letter, dated December 14, 2018, inquiring into whether Ms. Moradi needed accommodation to perform her job. In the letter, Ms. Moradi was asked for information from her doctor regarding her work restrictions, whether she could perform her job with or without accommodation, and what the phrase “steady movement” meant in her previous doctor’s note.
[16] Ms. Moradi subsequently went on medical leave, returning to work on December 30. While she was away, the Associate Store Leader and HR Partner investigated her allegations of bullying and harassment by interviewing several of her supervisors and co-workers [Investigation]. Their interview notes indicate that most interviewees told them that Ms. Moradi was departing from set processes and procedures, not following instructions, and not listening to what her co-workers told her was needed from her. Ultimately, the Associate Store Leader and HR Partner concluded that Ms. Moradi’s allegations of bullying and harassment were unsubstantiated.
[17] On January 3, 2019, a team leader at the Store [Team Leader SB] issued a “corrective counselling notice” document to Ms. Moradi for not wearing safety gloves when using a knife. The document indicated that it was a final notice, meaning that “a repeat offense will lead to termination.”
[18] In an email to the HR Partner on Saturday, January 5, Ms. Moradi indicated that she disagreed with the outcome of the Investigation, and stated: “Please protect me Now! May I die during pressure here!”
[19] In a January 7 email to Ms. Moradi, the HR Partner said she was concerned about Ms. Moradi’s wellbeing, provided information about Whole Foods’ employee assistance hotline, and offered to meet with her. Later that day, the HR Partner and Associate Store Leader met with Ms. Moradi. In a subsequent email describing the meeting, the HR Partner notes that Ms. Moradi stated that she was dealing with mental health issues and would be leaving early that day to see a psychiatrist.
[20] In a January 8 email to the HR Partner, Team Leader CC advised that he did not think Ms. Moradi had shown the improvement needed to be a successful team member.
[21] The third performance review took place on January 14 with Team Leader SB. On the form documenting the review, Ms. Moradi is marked as needing improvement in all areas. Team Leader SB states on the form that Ms. Moradi still needs to work on following instructions, following standard operating procedures, and focusing on the task at hand, and she provides examples from January 7, 8, and 10 when Ms. Moradi failed to do so. The form indicates that failure to correct her work performance would result in termination.
[22] On January 23, 2019, Whole Foods terminated Ms. Moradi’s employment. In an affidavit supporting the present dismissal application, the Associate Store Leader states that Ms. Moradi’s employment was terminated because she had failed three performance reviews and was continuing to disregard standard operating procedures and directions, including policies concerning workplace safety.
III DECISION
[23] Ms. Moradi’s complaint is about the alleged conduct of Whole Foods’ management and her co-workers, the Dizziness Incident, her performance reviews, Whole Foods’ alleged failure to accommodate her, and the termination of her employment.
[24] In her complaint, she states that the store team leader [Store Leader] was Chinese and most employees at the Store were Chinese or Filipino, and they “mistreated [her] for being Iranian.” She describes various instances of alleged mistreatment, including the following:
a. Several co-workers did not speak to her or work with her;
b. A co-worker watched her, gave her incorrect information, shouted at her for not using protective gloves, and berated her when she could not understand the co-worker;
c. A co-worker bothered her and sent her on break when she was busy working;
d. A co-worker lied about her, blamed her for things, made accusations about her, and gave her incorrect information;
e. An associate team leader who was Filipino [Associate Team Leader] asked her co-workers to put pressure on her, told her to leave when her team leaders had told her to work longer, and spoke a language other than English;
f. A co-worker told her she was messy, said she was wasting time washing vegetables, watched her, and shouted at her to “obey” directions;
g. A co-worker did not allow her to work with their group;
h. A co-worker never talked to her;
i. Co-workers laughed at her or her name;
j. A co-worker shadowed her “like a warden,” counted down her break time, and screamed at her;
k. A co-worker put pressure on her, shouted at her, and did things (e.g., did not let her pick up the food for her station) in order to blame her;
l. A co-worker made her do all the work at closing time and did not help her, reported that she was not a fast worker, glared at her, and told others to ignore her;
m. The Associate Team Leader did not answer her questions and did not allow her to wash dirty vegetables;
n. An employee made fun of her, gave her incorrect information, took things from her without permission, and left things on her table; and
o. A co-worker bothered her with personal questions, forced her to follow the wrong method of working, and criticized her hygiene when Ms. Moradi was cleaning her nail.
[25] Ms. Moradi suggests that the Dizziness Incident was the result of this type of mistreatment. She says that, on November 28, 2018, she was confronted at the Store by two Filipino co-workers and the Associate Team Leader, after which she started feeling dizzy and having daily blood pressure issues and palpitations. She goes on to say that, on the day of the Dizziness Incident, she had been bullied by two Filipino co-workers and Team Leader CC, after which she lost her balance and nearly collapsed. She says no one called an ambulance or did anything to help her; instead, Team Leader CC walked her to the hospital and left her there.
[26] Regarding the performance reviews, Ms. Moradi says “Whole Foods had a favoritism culture” (reproduced as written), and Store management “started to make false reviews in the first 7 days, to support their [Filipino] friends.” Without providing details, she asserts that the three reviews were “unfair” and “false,” and says she was “judged wrongly.” She adds that she could not understand the forms documenting the reviews because they were not translated.
[27] In relation to Whole Foods’ alleged failure to accommodate, Ms. Moradi states that when she returned to work following the Dizziness Incident, Team Leader CC urged her “to work at a fast pace,” even though her doctor had recommended that she work with steady movement, and Whole Foods put pressure on her by conducting the Second Review. She suggests that Whole Foods should have accommodated her by changing her workplace and/or her position. She says she told human resources and the Associate Store Leader “that the kitchen is full of Carbon Dioxide and harmful chemicals, as well as bullying and harmful behaviour,” and that she needed “to work in another place,” but no accommodation was provided, and the Store Leader fired her.
[28] She says she “was fired because [she] was not the same race” and because she raised concerns about hygiene and wrongdoing. She says the termination was unfair, as she had “perfect customer service and more productivity” than her co-workers. She says she believes her termination was discrimination based on race and disability – “OCD, vertigo and blood [pressure]” – and urges the Tribunal to hold Whole Foods accountable for the cumulative stressors she was put through.
[29] Whole Foods denies Ms. Moradi’s allegations of discrimination and asks the Tribunal to dismiss the entire complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
[30] Under s. 27(1)(c), the Tribunal can dismiss complaints that have no reasonable prospect of success and therefore do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. This is part of the Tribunal’s gatekeeping function. The Tribunal’s task under s. 27(1)(c) is to look at the evidence provided 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 onus is on the respondent to establish that a complaint should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(c). To meet this onus, the respondent must persuade the Tribunal that either the complainant has no reasonable prospect of making their case, or the respondent is reasonably certain to establish a defence: Lado v. Hardbite Chips and others, 2019 BCHRT 134 at para. 25.
[31] With respect to the former, where the respondent disputes elements of the complainant’s case, the complainant must make sure there is evidence before the Tribunal that is capable of supporting the complaint moving forward: Sincraian v. Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond), 2024 BCHRT 53 at para. 17; Scott v. BFI Constructors Ltd., 2025 BCHRT 286 at para. 12; see Rutkowski v. Unite Here Local 40, 2018 BCHRT 236 at para. 30. This is a low threshold, but a meaningful one. In a human rights complaint, there will almost always be some evidence of the possibility of discrimination; however, a mere possibility is not enough to require a hearing: Berezoutskaia at para. 24. To advance to a hearing, a complaint must be based on more than speculation that the respondent discriminated: Rutkowski at para. 30, citing Berezoutskaia at paras. 24-26; Gichuru v. Pallai (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 125 at para. 107. There must be evidence before the Tribunal that takes the case “out of the realm of conjecture”: Berezoutskaia at para. 24; Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.
[32] Against this legal backdrop, Whole Foods argues that Ms. Moradi’s allegations of discrimination based on race and disability have no reasonable prospect of success.
A. Allegations of discrimination based on race
[33] Whole Foods argues that Ms. Moradi has provided no evidence or particulars in support of her claims of mistreatment based on race. Rather, she “simply refers to the ordinary and active management of an employment relationship, including day-to-day management, performance evaluations, coaching, and direction regarding corporate policies and procedures.” Whole Foods argues that Ms. Moradi’s allegations “appear to be entirely rooted in speculation and her unsupported belief that the conduct of other Team Members was connected to her race merely because her co-workers were Filipino and Chinese.”
[34] I largely agree with Whole Foods’ arguments here and its characterization of Ms. Moradi’s complaint based on race. Specifically, I am satisfied that her claims – that she was mistreated because she is Iranian (including in the Dizziness Incident and her performance reviews) and then terminated because of her race – have no reasonable prospect of success.
[35] At a hearing, the burden would be on Ms. Moradi to prove these claims. To do so, she would need to establish that her race was a factor in the adverse treatment she says she experienced: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. In this regard, her evidence is primarily that perpetrators of the alleged discrimination were Chinese and Filipino, they sometimes spoke to one another in a different language, and she believed they treated each other better than they treated her. This is not enough to support an inference of discrimination. Overall, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable basis in the evidence before me to establish a connection between the alleged adverse treatment and Ms. Moradi’s race.
[36] I acknowledge Ms. Moradi’s claim that the Salad Bar was a bad work assignment, and that Filipino employees were not scheduled to work there. Even if this is true, however, without more it could not reasonably support a conclusion that Ms. Moradi’s assignment to the Salad Bar was adverse treatment connected to her race.
[37] I also acknowledge Ms. Moradi’s claims that co-workers laughed at her name. I accept that, depending on the circumstances, evidence that a co-worker mocked a racialized employee’s name could support a finding that the employee was adversely impacted in employment in connection to their race. For example, in Rana v. Loblaws Inc. (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 273, the Tribunal described the complainant’s allegation “that a co-worker mocked his name [Devendra Rana] and accent with a ‘sarcastic smile,’ asking whether his name was ‘Dave or DEVV or dev’ and then commenting ‘I am just wondering why the people from you country comes here changes the name’ [as written]”: para. 48. The Tribunal found that, on their face, these alleged facts could support a finding of a race-related adverse impact. As a result, it declined to dismiss the allegation under s. 27(1)(c): para. 49. In contrast, in the present case, Ms. Moradi’s allegation is simply that “they laughed at my name, they said (Faran-Fahrenheit)” (reproduced as written). Unlike in Rana, Ms. Moradi has not provided further contextual evidence capable of establishing that her co-workers’ conduct was related to her race. In my view, the sparse details provided – viewed on their own or in the context of the evidence as a whole – are not sufficient to support a finding of racial discrimination in contravention of the Code.
[38] Finally, I acknowledge Ms. Moradi’s evidence that English is not her first language and Whole Foods did not translate the forms documenting her performance reviews.
[39] Language is not a free-standing protected characteristic under the Code: Yang v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2008 BCSC 1456 at para. 138; M.L. v. BC Ministry of Children and Family Development, 2019 BCHRT 101 at para. 35; Cheng v. North American Telecommunications Group, 2024 BCHRT 58 at para. 27. However, where language is tied to a protected characteristic, like race or ancestry, it may ground a discrimination complaint: M.L. at para. 35; Cheng at para. 27. For instance, a pay discrepancy linked to the English language proficiency of an employee who, due to race or ancestry, does not speak English as a first language, may amount to an adverse impact in employment connected to their protected characteristics: see Cheng at paras. 23-32. Or, as another example, where English language requirements are intentionally used to discriminate against such an employee, they may contravene the Code: see Bao v. St. James Community Service Society and others, 2011 BCHRT 337 at para. 58; Chestacow v. Mount St. Mary Hospital (No. 2), 2013 BCHRT 96 at para. 9.
[40] In the present case, Ms. Moradi says she was asked to sign the performance review forms, but did not want to without translation because it is a person’s “right to not sign it if you cannot read and comprehend it.” I understand Ms. Moradi to allege that her need for translation was tied to her race and that Whole Foods’ failure to translate the forms was therefore an adverse impact connected to her protected characteristic.
[41] Assuming (without deciding) that there was a language proficiency issue here, which was tied to Ms. Moradi’s race, I am satisfied that she has no reasonable prospect of establishing that Whole Foods’ failure to translate the forms was an adverse impact in her employment for the purposes of the discrimination analysis under the Code.
[42] Ms. Moradi’s evidence is not that she did not understand what was discussed at the performance reviews. Nor does she allege that her poor reviews were a result of language-related deficiencies in her job performance. And there is no evidence to support that translation services or resources were denied in order to discriminate against her based on her race. While I appreciate that it may have been upsetting for Ms. Moradi to be asked to sign a contested, formal document without translation to her first language, the evidence before me is that no employment consequences flowed from her refusal to sign. I am therefore satisfied that, without something more, the evidence could not reasonably support a finding of a discriminatory adverse impact in employment here.
[43] In sum, I am satisfied that Ms. Moradi has no reasonable prospect of proving her allegations based on race.
B. Allegations of discrimination based on disability
[44] As I outlined above, Ms. Moradi’s evidence is that: the alleged mistreatment by her co-workers caused the Dizziness Incident; when she returned to work following the incident, she was urged to work quickly and felt pressured by the Second Review; and she needed “to work in another place” but no accommodation was provided and the Store Leader fired her. She alleges that the termination of her employment was discrimination based on not only race, but also disability – specifically, “OCD, vertigo and blood [pressure].”
[45] To make her case based on disability, Ms. Moradi would need to show that she had a disability and experienced an adverse impact in employment, and that her disability was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore at para. 33. Whole Foods argues that Ms. Moradi’s complaint based on disability does not satisfy this test. It says she “has not disclosed sufficient medical records existing at the time of her employment which can corroborate her alleged disabilities, and she has not established any connection between her termination of employment and alleged disabilities.”
[46] Further, I understand Whole Foods to argue that, because Ms. Moradi has no reasonable prospect of making her case, it need not persuade the Tribunal that it is reasonably certain to establish a defence: see Sincraian at para. 22. I agree. For the following reasons, I am satisfied that Ms. Moradi’s complaint based on disability has no reasonable prospect of success.
[47] First, even if Ms. Moradi can prove that mistreatment by her co-workers caused the Dizziness Incident, that would not, on its own, amount to discrimination. It is not discrimination to cause a person to experience a new health condition, and the evidence provided is not sufficient to ground a finding that the alleged mistreatment exacerbated an existing “disability” under the Code: see Dayries v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Corrections Branch, North Fraser Pretrial Centre, 2026 BCHRT 188 at para. 42.
[48] Second, the evidence before me could not reasonably support a conclusion that Ms. Moradi experienced an adverse impact in employment in connection to her doctor’s “steady movement” recommendation. There is no evidence regarding the meaning of this recommendation, and no evidence that Ms. Moradi had any medical restrictions or limitations against working at a fast pace or attending a performance review.
[49] Third, there is no evidence before me of a disability-related adverse impact that would have given rise to a duty, on Whole Foods, to accommodate. Ms. Moradi’s information regarding her work area being “full of Carbon Dioxide and harmful chemicals, as well as bullying and harmful behaviour,” is not evidence of a disability under the Code. Nor has she alleged, explained, or provided evidence to support that her stated OCD (which I understand to be Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) and/or anxiety affected her work performance. I do not accept that this type of link (between mental disabilities and job performance issues) can be inferred without sufficient evidence or explanation: see Harris v. Rize Alliance Properties and another, 2019 BCHRT 223 at para. 40; Scott at para 14; Siddall v. Daajing Giids Thrift Shop Society and others, 2026 BCHRT 131 at para. 26; Redmond v. John Howard Society of Okanagan & Kootenay (No. 3), 2026 BCHRT 172 at para. 157.
[50] Finally, on its own, Ms. Moradi’s belief that the termination of her employment was discrimination based on her “mental and physical issue[s] (OCD, vertigo and blood [pressure])” is not enough to warrant a hearing. The information filed does not take this part of her complaint out of the realm of conjecture. On the contrary, I agree with Whole Foods that the evidence overwhelmingly supports a conclusion that Ms. Moradi was dismissed because of the repeated and ongoing issues described in the forms documenting her performance reviews. Even accepting, for the purpose of this application, that Ms. Moradi experienced certain health conditions (OCD, anxiety, vertigo, high blood pressure), the information and evidence before me is not sufficient to support a link between these health conditions and the job performance issues that likely gave rise to her termination.
IV CONCLUSION
[51] On the whole of the materials before me, I am satisfied that Ms. Moradi has no reasonable prospect of proving her complaint of discrimination based on race and disability. Whole Foods’ dismissal application is therefore granted. The complaint is dismissed: Code, s. 27(1)(c).
Jonathan Chapnick
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal